Case Name: Herbert Alonzo ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Billy A. GREEN; Ms. Kerchek; Sheryl West; Penny Hamburg; Ms. Weinrich; Victoria Williams; Ms. Baker; Mr. Lecheny; Ms. Gibson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-07
Citations: 157 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: No. 05-7364
Parties: Herbert Alonzo ROBINSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Billy A. GREEN; Ms. Kerchek; Sheryl West; Penny Hamburg; Ms. Weinrich; Victoria Williams; Ms. Baker; Mr. Lecheny; Ms. Gibson, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
Herbert Alonzo ROBINSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Billy A. GREEN; Ms. Kerchek; Sheryl West; Penny Hamburg; Ms. Weinrich; Victoria Williams; Ms. Baker; Mr. Lecheny; Ms. Gibson, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-7364.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 7, 2005.
Herbert Alonzo Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Holmes Hood, Robert Holmes Hood, Jr., Roy Pearce Maybank, Daniel Merritt Bradley, Elloree A. Ganes, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Herbert Alonzo Robinson appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his pro se 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) com plaint. The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed Robinson's complaint for failure to demonstrate adequately that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. This court may exercise jurisdiction. only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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). Because Robinson may be able to save this action by adequately demonstrating exhaustion, the order which Robinson seeks to appeal is not an appeal-able final order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
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