James Joseph Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2000). To the extent that Owens seeks to state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claim based on alleged civil rights violations occurring in Maryland, this court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Carp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Owens seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

To the extent that Owens seeks to state a § 1983 claim based on alleged civil rights violations occurring in Ohio, or seeks to raise a habeas corpus claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), we have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Owens v. Steiger, No. l:08-cv-00121-JFM (D. Md. filed Feb. 21, 2008; entered Feb. 25, 2008). 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.