
    Carl E. McADOO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, (Department of Veterans Affairs) in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; Dr. Ernest T. Ahl, Jr., in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; Dr. Sonny W. Tucker, Jr., in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; Sandy F. Pierce, Physician Assistant, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; Rutherford County Department of Social Services, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; John Carroll, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; Vic Martin, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; Ann Padgett, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally; Joyce Ann Nash, in Official and Personal Capacity, sued Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-1938.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 17, 2015.
    Decided: Dec. 21, 2015.
    Carl E. McAdoo, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, Sr., Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Sean Francis Perrin, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; John E. Rogers, II, Ward Law Firm, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. - ;i
    Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carl E. McAdoo seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing all defendants except Joyce Ann Nash in McAdoo’s civil action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order McAdoo 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 this court and- argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  