
    Abdul-Hamza WALI MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Harold W. Clarke; Debra D. Gardner; A. David Robinson; George K. Washington; P. Scarberry, FODA; Randall Charles. Mathena; John F. Walrath; Sherri Shortridge; Jeffrey C. Artrip; A.J. Gallihar; Dewayne A. Turner; Stacy L. Day; Reanne Kegley; CMC Jackson; Paul Moceri, QMHP Senior; S. Fletcher, MED/QMHP; Lieutenant C. Stanley; Sergeant Eric Anthony Miller; Sergeant Clinton Deel; John Messer; All Dual Treatment Team Members; J.W. Coyle; C. Bishop; A.J. Vaughan; Lieutenant Steven B. Franklin; Lieutenant James Lyall; Larry W. Jarvis; John McQueen; Sgt. C. Dixon; Unit Manager Tori M. Raiford; Missy L. Counts; Capt. D. Still; Rena I. Mullins; A. Murphy; B. Akers; D. Williams; Larry I. Mullins; N.H. Cookie Scott; Brian Keith Dawkins; Helen Scott Richeson; Adina Pogue, Chief Operational Officer Regional; Mark E. Engelke; Geraldine G. Baker; Lieutenant Justin Kiser; George Hinkle, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-6208.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 19, 2016.
    Decided: April 22, 2016.
    Abdul-Hamza Wali Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Laura Hae-berle Cahill, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.
    Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Abdul-Hamza Wali Muhammad seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation that Appellees’ motions to dismiss or for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part and that Muhammad’s motions be denied. 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 Muhammad seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable 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.  