
    Edward J. GARABEDIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul LANTEIGNE, Sheriff; Beth Holcum, Medical Director; Jamal Udeen, Doctor; City of Virginia Beach; Correctional Medical Services; Commonwealth of Virginia; Virginia Beach Correctional Center; Deputy, In operating room during surgery 12/21/06; Medical Assistants, Chesapeake General Hospital; Deputy Assigned To Classifications, Housing Complaints, V.B.C.C.; Anesthesiologist, selected by Felix Kervin, M.D.; Lieutenant Hightower, Head of Classifications, V.B.C.C.; Deputy, classification officer; Deputy, Floor Dep. Claim # 7; Felix Kervin, Kervin Orthopedic Group PC Doctor/Surgeon, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-6865.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 10, 2009.
    Decided: Sept. 15, 2009.
    Edward J. Garabedian, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edward J. Garabedian appeals the district court’s order dismissing several defendants and a portion of his claims for failure to state a claim after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2006) review, and denying his request for a preliminary injunction. With respect to the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the district court’s order. Garabedian v. Lanteigne, No. l:08-cv01221 (E.D. Va. filed April 15, 2009; entered April 16, 2009). The remainder of the district court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Because this court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 387 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Garabedian’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.  