Case Name: Leo RITES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS; James Peguese, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections; Commissioner Sondervan; Major Lineburg, former Maryland House of Corrections Shift Commander; Hank Musk, Psychologist; John Swivel, Case Management Specialist; Sergeant Robinson, Maryland House of Corrections B Building Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-02
Citations: 103 F. App'x 744
Docket Number: No. 04-6533
Parties: Leo RITES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS; James Peguese, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections; Commissioner Sondervan; Major Lineburg, former Maryland House of Corrections Shift Commander; Hank Musk, Psychologist; John Swivel, Case Management Specialist; Sergeant Robinson, Maryland House of Corrections B Building Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 744–744

Head Matter:
Leo RITES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS; James Peguese, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections; Commissioner Sondervan; Major Lineburg, former Maryland House of Corrections Shift Commander; Hank Musk, Psychologist; John Swivel, Case Management Specialist; Sergeant Robinson, Maryland House of Corrections B Building Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-6533.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 16, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2004.
Leo Rites, Appellant pro se.
Before SHEDD and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leo Rites seeks to appeal the district court's order directing an answer to Rites' complaint, among other things. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Rites 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