
    Juanita L. JONES, a/k/a Juanita L. Owens, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. Calvin HILL, Judge District Court 28; Julie M. Kepple; Patricia K. Young; City of Asheville; State of North Carolina; John Doe; Charles E. Barnard; Annie M. Barnard; Buncombe County Commissioners; Drew Reisinger, Register of Deeds; Board of Surveyors; Nation Star Mortgage; Peter Henry; Alan Styles; Universal Insurance Company, agent of Paul Swank; Geico Insurance Agency, a/k/a Arrow-Head General Insurance Agency; District Court of Buncombe County, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-1287.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 23, 2014.
    Decided: Sept. 26, 2014.
    Juanita L. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North • Carolina; Ervin L. Ball, Jr., Ball, Barden & Bell, PA, Asheville, North Carolina; William E. Loose, Asheville, North Carolina; Curtis William Euler, Asheville, North Carolina; Patricia Shields, Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Michael T. Hosmer, McGuire Woods, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Peter Randle Henry, Asheville, North Carolina; Ann Cox Rowe, James G. Welsh, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, LLP, Winston Salem, North Carolina; Courtney C. Britt, Teague, Campbell, Dennis & Gor-ham, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Juanita L. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s orders of March 17, 2014 and March 21, 2014 denying her various motions in this civil action. 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 orders Jones seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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.  