Case Name: Reginald A. DICKS, a/k/a Reginald A. Dicks, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arenda THOMAS, Captain at Lee Correctional Institution; NFN Nessman, Captain at Lee Correctional Institution; Calvin Anthony, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; Grievance Personnel, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-11
Citations: 205 F. App'x 151
Docket Number: No. 06-7139
Parties: Reginald A. DICKS, a/k/a Reginald A. Dicks, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arenda THOMAS, Captain at Lee Correctional Institution; NFN Nessman, Captain at Lee Correctional Institution; Calvin Anthony, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; Grievance Personnel, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 151–151

Head Matter:
Reginald A. DICKS, a/k/a Reginald A. Dicks, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arenda THOMAS, Captain at Lee Correctional Institution; NFN Nessman, Captain at Lee Correctional Institution; Calvin Anthony, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; Grievance Personnel, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-7139.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 11, 2006.
Reginald A. Dicks, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, Lee, Erter, Wilson, James, Holler & Smith, L.L.C., Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Reginald A. Dicks seeks to appeal the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's denial of Dicks' motion for discovery. 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 Dicks 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