Larry S. Hyman, as Liquidating Trustee for Governmental Risk Insurance Trust v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 4th Cir. 1993 . However, a…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2183
LARRY S. HYMAN, as Liquidating Trustee for
Governmental Risk Insurance Trust,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF GASTONIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-25-3)
Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 23, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lee S. Haramis, Daniel A. Nicholas, GRAYROBINSON, P.A.,
Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant. Josephine H. Hicks, Gary D.
McCollum, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*Generally, dismissals without prejudice are not appealable.
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064,
1066 (4th Cir. 1993). However, a dismissal without prejudice could
be final if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in
the plaintiff’s case. Id. at 1066-67. We find that the district
court’s order is a final, appealable order because the defects in
the complaint--failure to properly serve the City--must be cured by
something more than an amendment to the complaint. Id.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Larry S. Hyman, Liquidating Trustee for Governmental Risk
Insurance Trust, appeals the district court’s orders dismissing
without prejudice the complaint against the City of Gastonia, North
Carolina, alleging breach of contract * and denying Hyman’s motion
filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the parties’
briefs, the joint appendix, and the materials submitted pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 28(j), and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Hyman v. City of Gastonia, No. CA-04-25-3 (W.D.N.C. July 1, 2004;
Aug. 17, 2004). We deny Hyman’s motion to supplement the record
and amended motion to supplement the record and 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --