
    Tyrone Lamar ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PADULA, Warden Lee Corrections Institution; Major James Dean; Lieutenant A. Davis; Lieutenant Ernest Mims; Sergeant B. Cook; Sergeant K. Arens; Ms. Fulton, Medical Health Care Provider RN; RN Ms. Judy Rabon; RN Ms. McDonald; Ms. Kela E. Thomas, Commission of Probation Parole and Pardon Services Director; William Byars, Jr., SCDC Director, et al; South Carolina State Budget and Control Board Committee; William F. Marscher, III, SC Commission on Indigent Defense; Frederick M. Corley, Esquire; Randolph Murdaugh, III, Solicitor Attorney for the State; William T. Howell, Judge of the 14th Judicial Circuit Court of SC; J. McRee, MD, KCI Pharmacy; Juanita Moss, Food Service Supervisor; Ms. Bell, Food Service Supervisor; Ms. Norman, Food Service Supervisor; Ms. Anderson, Food Service Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendant.
    No. 13-7897.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 24, 2014.
    Decided: April 28, 2014.
    
      Tyrone Lamar Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parker McLean, Clarke, Johnson, Peterson & McLean, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Lamar Roberson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and dismissing his complaint without prejudice against certain defendants. 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., 387 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the case is ongoing in the district court against the remaining defendants, the order Roberson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Roberson’s objection to the Appellees’ disclosure of corporate affiliations. 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.  