Edward Harold Saunders, Jr v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6329
EDWARD HAROLD SAUNDERS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MURIEL K. OFFERMAN, Secretary of Department of
Revenue,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; RICHARD W., in his
individual and official capacity as an agent
of the state of North Carolina; JANICE
FAULKNER; ANGELA, Controlled Substance En-
forcement Officer, in her individual and offi-
cial capacity as an agent of the state of
North Carolina,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-99-47-5-BR)
Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Edward
Allen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., appeals the district court's
order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant
Defendants' motion to dismiss and to allow the claim for prospec-
tive injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999),
to proceed. 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 inter-
locutory and collateral orders. See 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

-- 3 of 3 --