UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1259

REINALDO OLAVARRIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROY COOPER, Governor, in his official capacity and private capacity; REGINA PETTEWAY, in her individual and private capacity; TRACY CHAMPION, in her individual and private capacity; TARA DAWKINS, in her individual and private capacity; DELORES TAYLOR, in her individual and private capacity; DORETHA JONES, in her individual and private capacity; YETVETTE GRIFFIN, in her individual and private capacity; NICOLE FIELDS, in her individual and private capacity; DOREEN PEARSON, in her individual and private capacity; THERMAN NEWTON; CHRISTINA HENDERICKS, in her individual and private capacity; MANDY COHEN, in her individual and private capacity; JAMES A. SMITH, III, Chair of Wake County Board of Commissioners; BARBARA GIBSON, Director of North Carolina Office of State Human Resources, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00162-FL)

Submitted: June 18, 2020 Decided: June 22, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reinaldo Olavarria, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Reinaldo Olavarria seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after a frivolity review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2018), several of Olavarria’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Olavarria seeks to appeal is neither a final order, as litigation of several claims, against several Defendants, remains ongoing in the district court, 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