Raheem MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rosemary WILLIAMSON-CRAWL; Angela Bonsu; Michelle Reed; Jack McShea; Jack McShea, III; Timothy McShea; Joel Torres; Candice Hebron; Karind Garcia; Yankee Mukadi; Isiah Legget; Annie Alston; Lillian Durham; Jerry Robinson; Joy Flood; Gail Willison; Jamie B. Miller, Jr.; Michael Katur; Jean Banks; Roberto Pinero; Norman Cohen; Norman M. Dreyfuss; Pamela Lindstrom; Sally Roman; Antonia Adams; James Watkins; Donna Jackson; Wanda Seymore; Arie Robinson; Marsha Smith; Eric Axelrod; Timothy Beckett; Monica Blount-Hart; Marilyn Fox; Jacqueline Ghunaim; Latonya Hamilton; Mariska Mends; Fran Jamieson-Unger; Karen Jeffries; Lecia Stein; James L. Stowe; Odessa Shannon; David E. Hughley; Richard Y. Nelson, Jr.; Joseph Giloley; Michael T. Denney; Jane Blackwell; McShea Management Incorporated; Alexander Development Corporation; Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, Maryland; Montgomery County Maryland; Montgomery County, Maryland Office of Human Rights; Montgomery County, Maryland, Department of Housing and Community Affairs; District Court of Maryland; State of Maryland; Michael Conroy; Stephen A. Johnson; Patricia L. Mitchell; Gary Lewis Crawford; Brian Gook-Hyun Kim; James Bernard Sarsfield; Gary G. Evernga; Cheryl Ann McCally; Eugene Wolf; Barry Hamilton; William Simmons; Carolyn Beale; Tiwana Richardson; Ri Sheryll; Kevin Bernard McParland; Douglas M. Bregman; Laurence H. Berbert; Timothy Peter Schwartz; Mark Andrew Gilday; Law Offices of Bregman, Berbert, Schwartz and Gilday; Benjamin Clyburn, All in their Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellees, 359 F. App'x 363

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raheem Muhammad seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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 appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (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.