UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7799
O. GARRY OKPALA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States; KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, Director of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons; STEVEN J. GAL,
Warden of the Federal Correctional
Institution, Estill, South Carolina; JOE
SNODDY, Associate Warden, Federal Correctional
Institution, Estill, South Carolina; BYRNE,
Captain of the Federal Correctional
Institution, Estill, South Carolina; GRUBBS,
Counselor at Federal Correctional Institution,
Estill, South Carolina; CARTHWRIGHT, Unit
Manager at Federal Correctional Institution,
Estill, South Carolina; RANEW, Corrections
Officer at Federal Correctional Institution,
Estill, South Carolina; ROBINSON, Corrections
Officer at Federal Correctional Institution,
Estill, South Carolina; JOHNSON, Corrections
Officer at Federal Correctional Institution,
Estill, South Carolina; KATHLEEN MACK,
Supervisor of Education at Federal
Correctional Institution, Estill, South
Carolina; FOSSE, Lieutenant at Federal
Correctional Institution, Estill, SC; ADDUCCI,
Disciplinary Hearing Officer DHO at Federal
Correctional Institution, Estill, South
Carolina; UNKNOWN NAMED OFFICIALS, of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons; FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS; USA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-01-4252-0-25BD)
Submitted: March 19, 2003 Decided: April 17, 2003
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
O. Garry Okpala, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
O. Garry Okpala seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss some
claims and defendants from his civil rights action and the court’s
order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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 orders Okpala seeks to
appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or
collateral orders. 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