Robb M. Harksen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7150
ROBB M. HARKSEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
T. HALE, ROSP; J. ARMENTROUT, Operations; R.
A. YOUNG, Regional Director; S. SHORTRIDGE,
Operations Officer; D. A. BRAXTON; MAJOR
FLEMING; GENE JOHNSON, Deputy Director; C/O
HICKS; A. HARVEY, Assistant Warden of
Operations; MAJOR YATES; T. MONK, Counselor;
S. K. YOUNG, Warden; CAPTAIN FLEMING; T.
WOODS; COUNSELOR EVANS; C/O MULLINS; C/O
VANOVER; C/O YOUNCE; SERGEANT PHILLIPS; G.
DEEL; M. C. MULLINS; R. ROSE; M. HENSLEY,
Treatment Program Supervisor; L. HUFFMAN,
Regional Director; UNKNOWN DEFENDANT;
COUNSELOR KEGLEY; LIEUTENANT LEWIS,
Counselor; K. MCCOY; MS. LAWSON; MS. LAWSON;
COUNSELOR JESSEE; J. FANIN; H. DUNCAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-653-7-jct-mfu)
Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robb M. Harksen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Robb M. Harksen seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
order: (1) denying his motion to amend his complaint; (2) splitting
the case into four separate law suits; and (3) staying
consideration of Harksen’s claims under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act. 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). The order Harksen 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
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --