
    George Richard DOWLER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mary Ann SAAR, D.P.S.C.S.; Frank C. Sizer, Jr., Commissioner of Corrections; John H. Price, Warden of Maryland Correctional Institution, Defendants—Appellees. George Richard Dowler, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mary Ann Saar, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Frank C. Sizer, Jr., Commissioner of Corrections; John H. Price, Warden of Maryland Correctional Institution, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-6409, 05-7653.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 22, 2005.
    Decided Dec. 29, 2005.
    
      George Richard Dowler, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney-General, Phillip Michael Pickus, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    No. 05-6409, dismissed and No. 05-7653, affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

In consolidated appeals, George Richard Dowler appeals the district court’s March 3, 2005 order denying his motion to appoint counsel (No. 05-6409) and the district court’s final order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint (No. 05-7653).

In No. 05-6409, Dowler seeks to appeal the district court’s March 3, 2005, order denying his motion to appoint counsel. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Dowler seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss that appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In No. 05-7653, Dowler appeals the district court’s final order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm that order on the reasoning of the district court. See Dowler v. Saar, No. CA-04-3048-8-RWT (D.Md. Sept. 28, 2005). 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.

No. 05-6409 — DISMISSED

No. 05-7653 — -AFFIRMED  