
    Ahmad Clarence GARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director, SCDC; C. Rushton, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; L. Cartledge, Associate Warden, MCCI, C. Kendall, Associate Warden, MCCI; S. Lewis, Major, MCCI; I. Culbreath, IGC, MCCI; George Long, MCCI; J. Reed, MCCI; Richard P. Strokes; Philip Morris, USA, Defendants-Appellees. Ahmad Clarence Garland, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William D. Catoe, Director, SCDC; C. Rushton, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; L. Cartledge, Associate Warden, MCCI; C. Kendall, Associate Warden, MCCI; S. Lewis, Major, MCCI; I. Culbreath, IGC, MCCI; George Long, MCCI; J. Reed, MCCI; Richard P. Strokes; Philip Morris, USA, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 00-7794, 01-6091.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 22, 2001.
    Decided March 29, 2001.
    Ahmad Clarence Garland, pro se.
    Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald, Patrick, Tinsley, Baggett & Poston, Greenwood, SC, for appellees.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Ahmad Clarence Garland filed a civil action against Defendants alleging that they violated Garland’s civil rights. Garland now appeals the district court’s order clarifying its intent to dismiss only Phillip Morris as a Defendant in the action (Appeal No. 00-7794), and a separate order by the magistrate judge denying Garland’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Appeal No. 01-6091). We dismiss these consolidated appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the subject orders are not appeal-able.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U .S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory or collateral orders.

We therefore grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss in Appeal No. 01-6091, and we dismiss these appeals as interlocutory. We 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.

DISMISSED.  