UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1806

JOHN S. STRITZINGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN STRATTON, Verizon Business; CHRISTIANA CARE; JAMES CLAPPER, NSC; DIANA GOWEN, Centurylink; SUSAN ZELENIAK, Verizon Gov; JOHN SPEARS, ATT; LOCKHEED MARTIN, PC; NORTHROP GRUMMAN; JACK GALLANT, U of California Berkeley; TERENCE MCAULIFFE, Governor Commonwealth of Virginia; SENTARA HEALTHCARE; JOSEPH BIDEN, Vice President of the United States; WILMERHALE, Brian Boyton, Verizon Outside Counsel; JAMES R. STRITZINGER, SR.; JACK MARKELL, Governor of Delaware; LEWIS; DAVID A. STRITZINGER; PA STATE POLICE; WILLIAM R. STRITZINGER; MD TRANSIT AUTHORITY; VA STATE POLICE; LOUIS FREEH; JAMES R. STRITZINGER, JR.; TX STATE POLICE; VERNON H. C. WRIGHT; FL STATE POLICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS; MD STATE POLICE; DE STATE POLICE; MR. MILCH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-03211-TLW-PJG)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

John S. Stritzinger seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order denying his motion to reopen his case. 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 Stritzinger seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See

(b) (2012). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, deny Stritzinger’s pending motions, and 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