Case Name: Charles Everette HINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael W. HENDERSON; Peter S. Gilchrist; Teresa Broadway; Andrew Rudgers, Probation Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-30
Citations: 445 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 11-6529
Parties: Charles Everette HINTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael W. HENDERSON; Peter S. Gilchrist; Teresa Broadway; Andrew Rudgers, Probation Officer, Defendants—Appellees, and John Doe, Defendant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 445
Pages: 683–683

Head Matter:
Charles Everette HINTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael W. HENDERSON; Peter S. Gilchrist; Teresa Broadway; Andrew Rudgers, Probation Officer, Defendants—Appellees, and John Doe, Defendant.
No. 11-6529.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 30, 2011.
Charles Everette Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Francis Perrin, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Oliver Gray Wheeler, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charles Everette Hinton seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing Peter S. Gilchrist, III, from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Hinton 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.