
    Warren CHASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-6661.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 19, 2010.
    Decided: Aug. 30, 2010.
    Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Warren Chase seeks to appeal the district court’s order concerning his supplement to the complaint and his motion for a preliminary injunction. Insofar as Chase claims that the court erred by not allowing him to amend his complaint, we are without jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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). That part of the court’s order directing the Defendants to respond only to the allegations relevant to the period of time discussed in the original complaint is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss in part the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

With regard to Chase’s appeal from that part of the order denying his request for emergency injunctive relief, we have reviewed the record and affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court. See Chase v. Warden, No. 1:08-cv02566-CCB (D. Md. filed Feb. 18, 2010, entered Feb. 19, 2010).

Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.  