UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7817
ROBERT LEE HARRIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Individually and in their Official
Capacity under the Color of Law; KAREN WHITE, Regional
Director; AL HAYNES, Warden of U.S.P. Hazelton; DUKE
TERRELL, Warden of U.S.P. Leavenworth; A. W. JETT, Associate
Warden of U.S.P. Leavenworth; G. DRENNAN, Hospital
Administrator of U.S.P. Leavenworth; BOYLE, Hospital
Administrator of U.S.P. Hazelton; MCCULLUM, Dr. - Clinical
Director of U.S.P. Leavenworth; UNKNOWN PHYSICIAN'S
ASSISTANT, Federal Bureau of Prisons Employee and is sued in
his personal capacity; BILL CAREY, Lieutenant - Federal
Bureau of Prisons Employee and is sued in his personal
capacity; UNKNOWN FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS EMPLOYEE, and is
sued in his personal capacity,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:07-cv-00058-REM-JSK)
Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lee Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting his motion for an extension of time to file a
response to the magistrate judge’s recommendation in his
underlying action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of
the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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
Harris 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