Kenneth SORENSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John WOLFE, is the Warden of Jessup Correctional Institution; S Priggs, is a Case Manager of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections; LT. Barnett, is a Correctional Officer; Captain Shaw, is a Correctional Officer; Dr. Moore, is a Psychologist; Carol Jackson, is a Chief Medical Supervisor Medical Records Supervisor; George Allen, is a Case Manager; Robert Jordan, is a Correctional Officer of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections; Lieutenant Legrand; Kevin J. McComant; Sergeant Shekey Sellman; Frank B. Bishop, Jr.; Richard J. Graham, Jr.; Michael P. Thomas; W. Slate; Ronald Gordon; Robert Tichnell; David Sipes; E. Clark; "Bulter"; "Likin"; J. Monroe; "Karunzie"; Jane Doe #2, escorting transportation officer, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe, is the Inspector General of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections; John Doe, is the Director of the State of Maryland for the Division of Corrections; John Doe, is the Unit Chief of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections; John Hammond, is the County Executive for Anne Arrundel County; John Doe, is the Director of Statewide Department of Corrections; John Doe, is the Deputy Superintendent of Operations of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections; John Doe, is the Treatment Supervisor of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections; Ayo, is a Case Manager of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections; J Michael Stouffer, is the Commissioner of the State of Maryland Department of Corrections, Defendants, 681 F. App'x 297

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Sorensen seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment in Sorensen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action, and denying Sorensen’s third motion for preliminary injunctive relief. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. 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 portion of the order Sorensen seeks to appeal that granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction, though, over that aspect of the order that denied Sorensen’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Because Sorensen’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of this motion, Sorensen has forfeited appellate review of that portion of the appealed-from order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm in part the district court’s judgment. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART