Mustafa H. Sa’id v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 4th Cir. 1992 . 3 PER CURIAM: In these…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2042
MUSTAFA H. SA’ID,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER; BEST BUY,
INC.; COUNTY OF FAIRFAX POLICE DEPARTMENT; D.
A. CROOKE, Sargeant and individually; J.
THOMAS MANGER, Colonel, individually; ERIC
HANTE, Officer, individually; BRIAN J.
MCANDREW, Lieutenant, individually; LEON G.
WILLIAMS, Major; THOMAS RYAN, Captain; ARTHUR
J. HURLOCK, JR., individually; THOMAS E.
TYMAN, individually; CHARLES K. PETERS,
Captain, individually; WILLIAMS AUDREY M.
SLYMAN, Major, individually; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA, Workers Compensation Commissioner;
SUSAN A. CUMMINS, individually,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 01-2442
MUSTAFA H. SA’ID,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BEST BUY, INCORPORATED,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Defendant - Appellee,
and
FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER; COUNTY OF
FAIRFAX POLICE DEPARTMENT; D. A. CROOKE,
Sergeant, individually; J. THOMAS MANGER,
Colonel, individually; ERIC HANTE, Officer,
individually; BRIAN J. MCANDREW, Lieutenant,
individually; LEON G. WILLIAMS, Major,
individually; THOMAS RYAN, Captain,
individually; ARTHUR J. HURLOCK, JR.,
individually; THOMAS E. TYMAN, individually;
CHARLES K. PETERS, Captain, individually;
WILLIAMS AUDREY M. SLYMAN, Major,
individually; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Workers Compensation Commissioners; SUSAN A.
CUMMINS, individually,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-01-677-A)
Submitted: June 4, 2002 Decided: June 24, 2002
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
No. 01-2042 affirmed and No. 01-2442 affirmed as modified by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mustafa H. Sa’id, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Gouldin Killalea, COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia; Louis Edward Matthews, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;
John David Griffin, FOWLER, GRIFFIN, COYNE & COYNE, P.C.,
Winchester, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

* While interlocutory when the appeal was filed, the district
court’s intervening final order permits review under the doctrine
of cumulative finality. Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse
Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).
3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Mustafa H. Sa’id appeals the
district court’s order dismissing his action filed under 42
U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (1994), and the
magistrate judge’s interlocutory order declining to recuse
herself.* Best Buy, Inc., moves to dismiss the appeal, to strike
Sa’id’s reply in opposition, and to impose sanctions.
Because Sa’id’s informal briefs raise no challenge to the
magistrate judge’s recusal decision, the order denying Sa’id’s
motion to recuse is affirmed. See 4th Cir. Rule 34(b).
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by
dismissing Sa’id’s action because he failed to comply with its
earlier order instructing him to file an amended complaint. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b). However, the dismissal should be without
prejudice. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Goodwin & Boone, 11 F.3d
469, 472 (4th Cir. 1993); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96
(4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we affirm as modified the district
court’s order dismissing Sa’id’s action; we modify the order to
reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice.
We deny Best Buy’s motions to dismiss the appeal, to strike
Sa’id’s reply in opposition, and to impose sanctions.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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.
No. 01-2042 - AFFIRMED
No. 01-2442 - AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

-- 4 of 4 --