PER CURIAM: Sonja L. Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The report contained language advising Williams that she must file written objections to the report within ten days of the order’s entry. The magistrate judge’s report was entered on June 22, 2006, and within ten days of its entry, Williams filed in the district court an “appeal” of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
The document does not specifically express an intent to appeal to this court, but takes issue with various aspects of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); 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 magistrate judge’s report is not such an order. However, according Williams’ document a liberal construction, see Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir.1978), we construe the “appeal” letter as objections to the magistrate judge’s report. We therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, dismiss the appeal, and remand to the district court with instructions to construe Williams’ filing as timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report. 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 AND REMANDED.
Such a construction is further warranted by the fact that, although the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (2000), the report states that the magistrate judge was conferred jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).