Frank M. Neff v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 4th Cir. 1993 . A dismissal…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7941
FRANK M. NEFF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Maryland House of Corrections;
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA-
03-3001)
Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 1, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank M. Neff, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Frank M. Neff appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply
with its order to file a supplemental complaint to cure the defects
in the original complaint.
The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is not
appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without
prejudice is a final order only if no amendment could cure the
defects in the complaint. Id. at 1067. In ascertaining whether a
dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, we must
determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely
amending his complaint.” Id. Because Neff may cure the defect in
his complaint by filing a supplemental complaint in accordance with
the district court’s order, the dismissal order is not appealable.
Accordingly, we deny Neff’s motion for appointment of
counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 of 2 --