UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7046

DEMETRIOUS ERIC BROWN, a/k/a Denrick Eric Brown, a/k/a Demmerick Eric Brown, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director; GENE M. JOHNSON, Deputy Director; REFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; DAVID GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; S. J.

AVENT, Administrative Assistant Warden; J. D.

OATHS, Medical Administrator for the Virginia Department of Corrections; J. CAPPS, Human Rights Advocate; CHARLES ALLEN, Unit Manager; B. PHILLIPS, Medical Administrator for (CMS); ELLA KLUG, Regional Administrator for (CMS); BETH KENNEDY, Regional Manager for (CMS); MIKE PFEIFFER, Medical Operation Manager for (CMS); ANNETTE HOLMES, Medical Administrator for (CMS); K. HAMLIN, Head Nurse for (CMS); D.

SLOAN, LPN FOR (CMS); C. MANNING, LPN for (CMS); ROY P. HARRIS, Prison Guard, Lieu- tenant; VINCENT M. GORE, Doctor for (CMS); M.

VERNON SMITH, Doctor, Health Care Director; DOCTOR SWETHER; DOCTOR SALIH, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-144-AM)

Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrious Eric Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Demetrious Eric Brown appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action alleging indifference to serious medical need. 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