
    Jeffrey Brian COHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rod J. ROSENSTEIN, US Attorney; Harry Mason Gruber, Asst. US Attorney; Joyce Kallam McDonald, Asst. US Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-7313
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 31, 2017
    Decided: June 8, 2017
    Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Paul Phelps, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Brian Cohen seeks to appeal the district court’s order staying his civil suit against federal prosecutors pending resolution of his criminal direct appeal, as well aé its order granting in part and denying in part Cohen’s motion for reconsideration. As a threshold inquiry to any appeal, we are obliged to satisfy ourselves of our jurisdiction to hear the matter. See Clark v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2016); United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). We 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. 64(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders Cohen seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 11 n.11, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983); Amdur v. Lizars, 372 F.2d 103, 105-06 (4th Cir. 1967). 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  