In re: Alan J. Cilman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1776
In Re: ALAN J. CILMAN,
Debtor,
-----------------------
ALAN J. CILMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Child Support
Enforcement,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-03-272-A; BK-01-12387; AP-02-08114-RGM)
Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 14, 2004
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan J. Cilman, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Osborne Barnard, Edward
Meade Macon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia; Tex Ritter, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, Novato,
California, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
Alan J. Cilman appeals from the district court’s order
affirming the order of the bankruptcy court dismissing without
prejudice his complaint against the Virginia Department of Social
Services and the Department of Child Support Services for the
County of Marin, California. Because the action was dismissed
without prejudice, it 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 [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the
plaintiff’s case.’” Id. at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village
of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In
ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in
this court, the court must determine “whether the plaintiff could
save his action by merely amending his complaint.” Domino Sugar,
10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, Cilman may move in the
bankruptcy court to reopen his case and to file an amended
complaint in which he may be able to assert claims not barred by
sovereign immunity. Therefore, the dismissal order is not
appealable. Accordingly, we 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 --