Case Name: Emma Victoria Johnson HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VANCE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.; W.B. Lilley, Sergeant of the Vance County Sheriff's Dept., Individually and in his officially capacity; Vance County District Court; Raymond Earl Dickerson, d/b/a T.L. Perkinson Wrecker Service, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-07
Citations: 624 F. App'x 95
Docket Number: No. 15-2100
Parties: Emma Victoria Johnson HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VANCE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.; W.B. Lilley, Sergeant of the Vance County Sheriff's Dept., Individually and in his officially capacity; Vance County District Court; Raymond Earl Dickerson, d/b/a T.L. Perkinson Wrecker Service, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
Emma Victoria Johnson HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VANCE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.; W.B. Lilley, Sergeant of the Vance County Sheriff's Dept., Individually and in his officially capacity; Vance County District Court; Raymond Earl Dickerson, d/b/a T.L. Perkinson Wrecker Service, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 15-2100.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2015.
Decided: Dec. 7, 2015.
Emma Victoria Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Sonny Sade Haynes, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emma Victoria Johnson Howard seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Howard's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action in part and to allow certain claims to proceed. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Howard 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.