
    Josephat MUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY/Prince George’s County Public Schools; Verjeana M. Jacobs, Individually and as Board Chairperson of Prince George’s Public Schools; Dr. William R. Hite, Jr., Individually and as superintendent; Roger C. Thomas, Esquire; Synthia J. Shilling; Monica Goldson, Individually and as Associate superintendent of Prince George’s Public Schools; Pierre Dickson, Individually and as agent of the Board of Education of Prince George’s County; Dr. Kevin Maxwell, Individually and as superintendent of Prince George’s Public Schools; Dr. Alvin L. Crawley, Individually and as superintendent; Robert J. Gaskin, Individually and Chief Human Resources of Prince George’s Public Schools; Dr. Lillian M. Lowery; Ardra O’Neal; Abbey Hairston, Defendants-Appellees, and American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME; Association of Classified Employees American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFSCME Local 2250, Defendants.
    No. 15-2363
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 10, 2016
    Decided: June 21, 2016
    Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing Mua’s case based on Mua’s failure to file an amended complaint against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and AFSCME Local 2250; dismissing, without prejudice, Mua’s claims against the remaining Defendants; and granting, in part, Mua’s motion for reconsideration. 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 orders Mua seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Moreover, Mua may challenge the district court’s orders in Appeal No. 16-1509. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Mua’s motion for leave to file an amended initial brief and his motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeal No. 16-1509. 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  