Case Name: Kenneth H. NEWKIRK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis LERNER, Judge, Circuit Court; Anton Bell, District Attorney; George Rogers, Attorney, Stand By; Linda Smith, Clerk of Circuit Court; Charles Haden, Appeal Lawyer; Rodney, Detective, Hampton Police Department; Ashley Kelly, Daily Press Writer; Monae Debra Waters-Owens; Thomas Sherrad Kearney, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-04
Citations: 539 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 13-6873
Parties: Kenneth H. NEWKIRK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis LERNER, Judge, Circuit Court; Anton Bell, District Attorney; George Rogers, Attorney, Stand By; Linda Smith, Clerk of Circuit Court; Charles Haden, Appeal Lawyer; Rodney, Detective, Hampton Police Department; Ashley Kelly, Daily Press Writer; Monae Debra Waters-Owens; Thomas Sherrad Kearney, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 161–161

Head Matter:
Kenneth H. NEWKIRK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis LERNER, Judge, Circuit Court; Anton Bell, District Attorney; George Rogers, Attorney, Stand By; Linda Smith, Clerk of Circuit Court; Charles Haden, Appeal Lawyer; Rodney, Detective, Hampton Police Department; Ashley Kelly, Daily Press Writer; Monae Debra Waters-Owens; Thomas Sherrad Kearney, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-6873.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 29, 2013.
Decided: Sept. 4, 2013.
Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth H. Newkirk seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order directing him to particularize his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 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 Newkirk seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.