UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7844

GEORGE H. VAN WAGNER, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ANTHONY RISH; JOHN MCMAHON; LARRY DOLPH; DAVID H. ROBERTS, Plaintiffs, versus SALLY JOHNSON, Doctor, in her official capac- ity as Associate Warden of Mental Health Ser- vices and Head of United States Public Health Services at Butner Federal Correctional Insti- tute and individually; CATHY HICKS, in her official capacity as Unit Manager, Federal Correctional Institute Butner and individ- ually; JIM KING, Case Manager, in his official capacity at Federal Correctional Institute Butner and individually; WILBER LEMAY, Coun- selor, in his official capacity at Federal Correctional Institute Butner and individually, Defendants - Appellees, and MICHAEL J. QUINLAN, as Director of Bureau of Prisons in his official capacity and individ- ually; US GOVERNMENT, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-92-200-5-BR)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George H. Van Wagner, III, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson Kocher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court order dismissing his claims and denying various motions in a multi-plaintiff civil action. The action continues below on the other plaintiffs' claims.

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 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

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