UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6679
OPHEILA AZRIEL DE’LONTA, a/k/a Michael A.
Stokes,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE; M. V. SMITH, Doctor; R.
HULBERT, Doctor; C. J. ANGLIKER, Doctor; DOC-
TOR WRAY; DOCTOR SWETTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 00-6680
OPHEILA AZRIEL DE’LONTA, a/k/a Michael A.
Stokes,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE; M. V. SMITH, Doctor; R.
HULBERT, Doctor; C. J. ANGLIKER, Doctor; DOC-
TOR WRAY; DOCTOR SWETTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-99-642-7)
Submitted: August 15, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
No. 00-6679 dismissed and No. 00-6680 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Opheila Azriel De’Lonta, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, As-
sistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; George W. Wooten,
Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia; Heather
Marie Kofron, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Opheila Azriel De’Lonta appeals the denial of her motions for
appointment of counsel and preliminary injunctive relief. In ap-
peal No. 00-6679, De’Lonta challenges the magistrate judge’s order
denying her motion for appointment of counsel. We dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. §
1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, see
28 U.S.C.A. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Benefi-
cial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here ap-
pealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th
Cir. 1987).
In appeal No. 00-6680, De’Lonta challenges the district
court’s order denying her amended motion for preliminary injunctive
relief. We find that the court did not abuse its discretion. See
Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Corp., 952 F.2d 802,
814-15 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. See De’Lonta v. Angelone, No. CA-99-642-7
(W.D. Va. May 9, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
No. 00-6679 - DISMISSED
No. 00-6680 - AFFIRMED
3