Ya Jelani SIMBA, a/k/a Joseph H. Shaw, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wendy BRITT, Unit Manager; Isaac Baldwin, Assistant Unit Manager; Floyd E. Slate, Sergeant, Prison Guard; Linda Glover, Sergeant, Prison Guard; Henry Johnson, Sergeant, Prison Guard; Thomas Meekins, Prison Guard; Spurgeon Wilburn, Prison Guard; P.A. Galloway, Prison Guard; Don G. Wood, Prison Superintendent Scotland Correctional Institution; Frederick Hubbard, Assistant Superintendent of Operations; Gary Crutchfield, Assistant Superintendent of Programs; Ms. Jordan, Nurse; M. Bellamy, Prison Guard; V. Hall, Lead Nurse; Mary Dianne Wyatt, Unit Manager; Darlene Capel, Prison Guard; Debra McLeod-Duncan, Nursing Supervisor; P. Bergmann, Prison Guard; Ann Bethea, Prison Guard; T. Tyner, Prison Guard; Elliott Alford, Prison Guard; Ms. Hunt, Prison Guard; James Caulder, Prison Guard; A. Williamson, Prison Guard; Tawanna Locklear, Prison Guard; G. Hunt, Prison Guard; A. Speight, Prison Guard; Susan Morrison, Prison Guard; B. Smith, Prison Guard, R. Dixon, Prison Guard; MS. Hudson, Prison Guard; MS. Dunston, Prison Guard; A. McLean, Sergeant, Prison Guard; Constance Locklear, Prison Guard; Janice Farmer, Prison Guard; Matthew Pennell, Unit Manager; S. Mickey Bunton, Assistant Unit Manager; Keith Whitener, Assistant Superintendent; Curtis Brown, Prison Guard Captain, Defendants-Appellees, 212 F. App'x 202

PER CURIAM: Ya Jelani Simba seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint without prejudice and the denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(

b) motion. 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 order Simba seeks to appeal is not an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED.