Case Name: Christopher A. ODOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Veronica SMALLS, Officer Judge; Patricia Baldwin, Officer Judge; Roger Owen, Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-26
Citations: 348 F. App'x 879
Docket Number: No. 09-6921
Parties: Christopher A. ODOM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Veronica SMALLS, Officer Judge; Patricia Baldwin, Officer Judge; Roger Owen, Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 879–880

Head Matter:
Christopher A. ODOM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Veronica SMALLS, Officer Judge; Patricia Baldwin, Officer Judge; Roger Owen, Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-6921.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 26, 2009.
Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher A. Odom seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) suit. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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 Odom seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 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.
Odom's notice of appeal could also have been construed as objections to the magistrate judge's report. As we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we express no opinion on the proper construction of Odom's filing.