UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7767

JOHN WILEY, a/k/a James Harris, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT TEGETOFF; LIEUTENANT MCROY; LIEU- TENANT NASH; CORPORAL MOBLY; OFFICER CHRISLEY; TONY FORMAN, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-8534

JOHN WILEY, a/k/a James Harris, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

LIEUTENANT TEGETOFF; LIEUTENANT MCROY; LIEU- TENANT NASH; CORPORAL MOBLY; OFFICER CHRISLEY; TONY FORMAN, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-95- 2647-CCB) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Linda B. Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney, David Eugene Stevenson, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: In No. 95-7767, Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing several claims and Defendants and granting him addi- tional time to supplement his complaint. In No. 95-8534, Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motions for appoint- ment of counsel and for an enlargement of time, granting leave to amend, and directing him to show cause why his Complaint against one Defendant should not be dismissed. We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

We dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. 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