
    David E. GEORGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reece Nelson McCLURE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-1893.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 30, 2002.
    
      Amiel J. Rossabi, Forman, Rossabi, Black, Marth, Iddings & Slaughter, P.A., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ellis B. Drew, III, Wells, Jenkins, Lucas & Jenkins, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Reece Nelson McClure appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss David E. George’s civil action against McClure. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. 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 order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Further, we deny McClure’s request for a writ of mandamus as he has not met the heavy burden of showing he has no other adequate means to attain relief and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). We also deny George’s request, set forth in his brief, that we tax McClure with the costs of this appeal, George’s costs, and George’s attorneys’ fees, without prejudice to his right to pursue such relief pursuant to the procedures established by Rules 38 and 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 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.  