Case Name: Lawrence CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. Joseph ABRAMS, III; Mrs. Joseph Abrams, III; Cylenia Lee; Sylvia Lee; Mr. Brunson, Sylvia's husband; Mr. Herbert Lee; Mrs. Herbert Lee; April Monroe; Michael Lee; William Tetterson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-07
Citations: 283 F. App'x 170
Docket Number: No. 07-7406
Parties: Lawrence CRAWFORD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mr. Joseph ABRAMS, III; Mrs. Joseph Abrams, III; Cylenia Lee; Sylvia Lee; Mr. Brunson, Sylvia’s husband; Mr. Herbert Lee; Mrs. Herbert Lee; April Monroe; Michael Lee; William Tetterson, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
Lawrence CRAWFORD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mr. Joseph ABRAMS, III; Mrs. Joseph Abrams, III; Cylenia Lee; Sylvia Lee; Mr. Brunson, Sylvia’s husband; Mr. Herbert Lee; Mrs. Herbert Lee; April Monroe; Michael Lee; William Tetterson, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-7406.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 27, 2008.
Decided: July 7, 2008.
Lawrence Crawford, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Crawford seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying his motion to add new defendants to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) civil rights action. 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, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Crawford seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Further, we deny Crawford's motion for clarification regarding what issues are before this court. 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.