UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7454

HENRY W. MARTIN, JR.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM R. BYARS; JOHN R. PATE; ARTHUR A. JORDAN; MCKENNDLY NEWTON; ROBERT E. WARD; JON OZMINT; DENNIS PATTERSON; DANIEL MURPHY; DAVID M. TATARSKY; LT. J. CARUJO; LT. J. CARTER; ROBERT ORR; LT. JAMES RUMP; CAPTAIN E. J. MILLER; DR. THOMAS BYNSE; LT. VARLEASE BLACK; CPL L. JENKINS; CPT MYECHA MILEY; M. HUDSON; S. SINGLATON, DHO; CPL. T. SIMPSON; MR. MCQUEEN; P. SMITH; A. HOLLMAN; HELEN FREEMAN; THOMAS SCOTT; CPT. E. JAMES; TANYA A. GEE; V. CLAIRE ALLEN; JOHN C. FEW; WAYNE C. MCCABE; JILL BEATTIE; JEANNETTE MACK; FRANCINE BAUCHMAN; PATTY BRITT POSEY; JAMES S. SLIGH, JR.; DR. ROWLAND; GREGORY S. LINE; CHARLOTTE SMITH; ELLEN GOODWIN; RUSSELL RUSH; JIM CROSBY; SUSAN BARDEN; VIRGINIA CROCKER; PAM SMITH; LAKETA DIKA; DEBORAH B. DURDEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:13-cv-03516-TMC-KFM)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Sharp, GRIFFITH, SADLER & SHARP, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Henry W. Martin, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and dismissing Martin’s claims against all but one

Defendant without prejudice. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders,

(2012),

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

(2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp.,

(1949). The order Martin seeks

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3