Rabah Muhammad Ali, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James B. Hunt; Franklin E. Freeman, Jr.; Lynn C. Phillips;randall E. Lee, Defendants-appellees.rabah Muhammad Ali, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Martin Mcdade; Odis Temple; Lynn Phillips; Franklinfreeman, Defendants-appellees, 12 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 1993)

Appellant filed two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints alleging that he had been denied access to the courts (No. 93-7008) and that his religious rights had been compromised and he was not properly fed (No. 93-7033).¹  The district court denied relief and Appellant appeals. Our review of the records and the district courts' opinions discloses that these appeals are without merit. With regards to No. 93-7008, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ali v. Hunt, No. CA-93-516-CRT-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 7, 1993). With regards to No. 93-7033, 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 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.² 

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.