Case Name: Richard Douglas MURRAY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of WEST VIRGINIA, ex rel.; Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General; James Rubenstein, Commissioner, D.O.C.; William S. Haines, Warden, H.C.C.; Honorable Gray Silver; Honorable Christopher Wilkes, Judge 23rd Judicial Circuit, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-01
Citations: 184 F. App'x 306
Docket Number: No. 05-7781
Parties: Richard Douglas MURRAY, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of WEST VIRGINIA, ex rel.; Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General; James Rubenstein, Commissioner, D.O.C.; William S. Haines, Warden, H.C.C.; Honorable Gray Silver; Honorable Christopher Wilkes, Judge 23rd Judicial Circuit, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 306–307

Head Matter:
Richard Douglas MURRAY, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of WEST VIRGINIA, ex rel.; Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General; James Rubenstein, Commissioner, D.O.C.; William S. Haines, Warden, H.C.C.; Honorable Gray Silver; Honorable Christopher Wilkes, Judge 23rd Judicial Circuit, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-7781.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 10, 2006.
Decided: June 1, 2006.
Richard Douglas Murray, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard D. Murray, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his objection to the standing order referring his case to a magistrate judge for report and recommendation. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Murray seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Murray's motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.