Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Marco GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-29
Citations: 338 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 09-6105
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marvin Marco GRAHAM, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 338
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marvin Marco GRAHAM, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-6105.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2009.
Decided: July 29, 2009.
Marvin Marco Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Christopher Morris, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin Marco Graham seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion to vacate. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). "A denial of a motion to amend a complaint is not a final order, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order." Bridges v. Dep't of Md. State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006). 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.