UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2749

DALLICE M. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

COKER COLLEGE; ANGIE MCKENZIE; DEBRA ORANDER, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 97-1028

DALLICE M. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

COKER COLLEGE; ANGIE MCKENZIE; DEBRA ORANDER, Defendants - Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1733-4-10BD) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: September 24, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dallice M. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. John Wood Francisco, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, Charlotte, North Carolina; Kevin Augustus Dunlap, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, Spartanburg, South Caro- lina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Dallice Allen appeals from the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying her motion for a default judgment. Coker College, Angie McKenzie, and Debra Orander cross-appeal from the portion of the district court's order that denies their motion to dismiss the action for insufficient service of process. We dismiss the appeal and the cross-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 deny as meritless Allen's motion for action against unethi- cal conduct and dismiss the appeal and the cross-appeal as inter- locutory. Further, we deny Allen's motions for a transcript and for a stay of discovery pending appeal. 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