Case Name: Jorge GEVARA, a/k/a Jorge Galeas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin W. KELLER, Jr.; Robert C. Lewis; Richard Neely; Lawrence Parsons; Jeffrey T. Smith; Judy Atwater; Dennis E. Marshall; Betty Inpold; D. House; J. Hyatt; E. Coleman, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-21
Citations: 408 F. App'x 761
Docket Number: No. 10-7544
Parties: Jorge GEVARA, a/k/a Jorge Galeas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin W. KELLER, Jr.; Robert C. Lewis; Richard Neely; Lawrence Parsons; Jeffrey T. Smith; Judy Atwater; Dennis E. Marshall; Betty Inpold; D. House; J. Hyatt; E. Coleman, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 761–762

Head Matter:
Jorge GEVARA, a/k/a Jorge Galeas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin W. KELLER, Jr.; Robert C. Lewis; Richard Neely; Lawrence Parsons; Jeffrey T. Smith; Judy Atwater; Dennis E. Marshall; Betty Inpold; D. House; J. Hyatt; E. Coleman, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-7544.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.
Decided: Jan. 21, 2011.
Jorge Gevara, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, Appellee Betty Inpold.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Gevara seeks to appeal the district court's order denying reconsideration of its previous order denying Gevara's motion to amend his complaint. 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, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Gevara 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.