Ronald E. Jarmuth v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . We lack jurisdiction because the

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1464
RONALD E. JARMUTH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KATHLEEN R. WATERS; JAMES M. FRINZI,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-63-IMK)
Submitted: August 17, 2005 Decided: September 1, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald E. Jarmuth, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Andrew Coppula,
TUCKER ARENSBERG, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ronald E. Jarmuth seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his civil action as to Defendant Kathleen Waters
for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissing for failure to
state a claim some but not all of the claims against Defendant
James Frinzi. 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 (2000), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). We
lack jurisdiction because the order here appealed is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir.
1982). We likewise deny Jarmuth’s motion to treat the notice of
appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus, as Jarmuth may appeal
the district court’s adverse order upon final judgment. See In re
Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135-36 (4th Cir. 1992); In re
Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
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

-- 2 of 2 --