UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6201

DAVID TERRY KIDD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE; EDWARD W. MURRAY; E. C. MORRIS; BENJAMIN R. HAWKINS; LARRY D. HUFFMAN; MR. LAWSEN; OMBUDSMAN; JOHN B. TAYLOR; LARRY W.

JARVIS; STEVE B. HOLLAR; FAYE W. MCCAULEY; W.

E. JACK; JAMES R. THOMPSON; SCOTT MILLER; R. HUMPHRIES, Correctional Officer; DIANE CUBBAGE; RUSS FITZGERALD; GARY L. SANDERSON; KATHY FRIES; LYNNE GRAHAM COX; CYNTHIA NUCKOLS; PAT GUERNEY, Defendants - Appellees, and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STAUNTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER; CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF WAYNESBORO; 25TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; MARY SUE TERRY; STEPHEN R. ROSENTHAL; PAMELA ANNE SARGENT; CLARENCE L. JACKSON; LEWIS W.

HURST; GAIL Y. BROWNE; JOHN A. BROWN; JACQUELINE F. FRASER; DOCTOR SADDOFF; DOCTOR GARDELLIA; DOCTOR OZINAL; ROD G. GRIFFITH; MARY ANN WHALEY; WENDY G. DODGE; LISA WILHELM; DEE DEE HALL; MICHELLE WOODS; BOB CASH; JUDITH CASH; KAYE MARSHALL; DIANE MOTLEY; THOMAS E.

ROBERTS, Clerk of Court, City of Staunton; BRENDA MORRIS; JUDITH OWENS; JOHN ROBERT LEWIS, JR.; MICHAEL M. CLATTERBUCK; PHILLIP COLTRANE; WILLIAM DULL; RAY FITZGERALD; THOMAS E. NORTHROP, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-93-788-R)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Terry Kidd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Joseph Ross Newell, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, P.C., Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from district court orders: (1) directing the clerk to send a copy of Appellant's discovery request to the Defendants' counsel; and (2) sustaining a Defendant's objection to deposition prior to resolution of a preceding motion for summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain inter- locutory 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 appeal 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