UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7674
WARREN CHASE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JACK KAVANAUGH, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
98-2265-CCB)
Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999
Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Angela Michelle Eaves, Assistant Attorney General, Balti-
more, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Warren Chase appeals an order denying his motion to amend the
complaint and denying his motion seeking injunctive relief. Inso-
far as Chase appeals the denial of the motion to amend the com-
plaint, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain inter-
locutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541
(1949). An order denying a motion to amend the complaint is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order.
Insofar as Chase appeals the denial of injunctive relief, we
have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Chase v. Kavanaugh, CA-98-2265-CCB (D. Md.
Oct. 30, 1998).*
We deny Chase’s motion for a temporary restraining order. We
dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part. We dispense with
*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
October 29, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on October 30, 1998. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as
the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
3