
    Aaron M. BURNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David SIMMONS, Superintendent; Captain Cowan, Chief of Security, HRRJ; Sergeant Epperson, Unit Manager, HU 1; Sergeant Moore, Unit Manager, HU 1; Sergeant Murphy, Unit Manager, HU 1; Sergeant Jones, Unit Manager, HU 1; Sergeant Phillips, Unit Manager, HU 1; John or Jane Doe, Medical Director, Defendants-Appellees, and Jim O’Sullivan, Sheriff; John Doe, Superintendent; Sergeant Ellis, Internal Affairs, HRRJ; Lieutenant Whitehead, Watch Commander; John Does I-X, Pod Officers (HU 1/2); John/Jane Does I-X, Pod Officers 3/1; John/Jane Does I-X, Pod Officers HU 1/4; John/Jane Does I-X, Pod Officers 1/3; Doe, Mailroom; Jane Doe, Intake Property Officer; Correctional Officer Martin, Chesapeake Correctional Center (CCC); Correctional Officer Parrish, Chesapeake Correctional Center (CCC); Warden Manis, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Defendants.
    No. 17-6520
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 17, 2017
    Decided: August 22, 2017
    Aaron M. Burns, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   .Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Aaron M. Burns seeks to appeal from the district coui’t’s order denying reconsideration of the dismissal without prejudice of his claims against Defendants at Chesapeake Correctional Center, Nottoway Correctional Center, and Western Tidewater Regional Jail based on improper joinder of claims, and dismissing two of the four claims he asserted against Defendants at Hampton Roads Regional Jail in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) pomplaint. 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 Burns 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  