UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RICHARD SAMUEL, Sergeant; WILFORD
SHIELDS, Superintendent; JOEL
                                                          No. 95-7804
HERRON; LYNN PHILLIPS; OFFICER
HARRIS; OFFICER HORTON; OFFICER
SUTTON; GARY T. DIXON, Warden;
OFFICER DAVIS,
Defendants-Appellees.

CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RICHARD SAMUEL, Sergeant; WILFORD
SHIELDS, Superintendent; JOEL
                                                          No. 95-7910
HERRON; LYNN PHILLIPS; OFFICER
HARRIS; OFFICER HORTON; OFFICER
SUTTON; GARY T. DIXON, Warden;
OFFICER DAVIS,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
(CA-94-484-5-H)

Submitted: January 18, 1996

Decided: February 13, 1996
Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing portions of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and the order declining to reconsider
the partial dismissal and denying Appellant's motion for recusal. We
dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not
appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collat-
eral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here
appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or col-
lateral orders.

We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
appeals as interlocutory. 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

                    2
LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, concurring:

Appellant has filed 123 appeals in this court between October 22,
1993, and today. I would impose sanctions against Appellant for
abuse of the judicial process.

                    3
