Case Name: Paul SCINTO, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward Glenn PRESTON; Ralph Melton, Jr.; Frank Polumbo; Brian Lemay; Eric Wing; E & J Automotive, et al.; The City of New Bern, North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-25
Citations: 231 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 07-6128
Parties: Paul SCINTO, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Edward Glenn PRESTON; Ralph Melton, Jr.; Frank Polumbo; Brian Lemay; Eric Wing; E & J Automotive, et al.; The City of New Bern, North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 250–250

Head Matter:
Paul SCINTO, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Edward Glenn PRESTON; Ralph Melton, Jr.; Frank Polumbo; Brian Lemay; Eric Wing; E & J Automotive, et al.; The City of New Bern, North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-6128.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 8, 2007.
Decided: June 25, 2007.
Paul Scinto, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James Carlton Thornton, Sarah Lynne Ford, Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary Hamilton Clemmons, Chesnutt, Clemmons & Peacock, PA, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Paul Scinto, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying in part his motion for default judgment. 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 Scinto seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Appellees' motion to stay. 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.