UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MATTHEW DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Russell A. Eliason, Magis-
trate Judge. (CR-95-284-6-1, CA-99-842-1)
Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: September 18, 2000
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United
States Attorney, Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greens-
boro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Davis seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order de-
nying his motions to subpoena witnesses, proceed in forma pauperis,
and conduct discovery, and striking his motion to show good cause
and facts in support of a claim for fraud.* We dismiss the appeal
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. § 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 inter-
locutory or collateral order.
We therefore deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Davis’ motion to review the
issues presented, and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dis-
pense 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
*
We note that, contrary to Davis’ claim in his informal
brief, the magistrate judge had jurisdiction to rule on these
motions without the parties’ consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
(1994).
2