¶1 Jose Lopez appeals from the district court’s order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action that granted summary judgment to certain defendants and dismissed certain claims for failure to exhaust state remedies or failure to state a claim. This Court has 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). A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945). When a district court dismisses fewer than all claims as to the order, it is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Baird v. Palmer, 114 F.3d 39, 42 (4th Cir.1997).
¶2 We deny Lopez’s motion to lift stay and for leave to file an interlocutory appeal and *659 dismiss the appeal 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.
¶3 DISMISSED