Case Name: Steven E. TARPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC; Robert D. Ritchey; Ms. Puller; Bruce Bozman; T. Milliner, Captain; G. Barnes; Dr. Reeves; A. Tull, Lieutenant; Lieutenant Holland; T.J. Lewis, Officer; George Kaloroumakis; Mr. Nastri; John Doe, Hearing Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-04
Citations: 73 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 03-6679
Parties: Steven E. TARPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC; Robert D. Ritchey; Ms. Puller; Bruce Bozman; T. Milliner, Captain; G. Barnes; Dr. Reeves; A. Tull, Lieutenant; Lieutenant Holland; T.J. Lewis, Officer; George Kaloroumakis; Mr. Nastri; John Doe, Hearing Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 73
Pages: 642–642

Head Matter:
Steven E. TARPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC; Robert D. Ritchey; Ms. Puller; Bruce Bozman; T. Milliner, Captain; G. Barnes; Dr. Reeves; A. Tull, Lieutenant; Lieutenant Holland; T.J. Lewis, Officer; George Kaloroumakis; Mr. Nastri; John Doe, Hearing Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-6679.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.
Decided Sept. 4, 2003.
Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Steven E. Tarpley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to recuse the district court judge from hearing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. 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 Tarpley 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.