Holmes v. Pearson ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8536
MONTREL HOLMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EDDIE L. PEARSON; JOSEPH GARMAN; WILLIE
BOSWELL; J. A. SMITH, JR.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief
District Judge. (CA-95-1349-AM)
Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Montrel Holmes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Montrel Holmes appeals from the district court's order dis-
missing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) 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 could
be final if "no amendment [to the complaint] could cure defects in
the plaintiff's case." Id. at 1067. In ascertaining whether a dis-
missal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court
must determine "whether the plaintiff could save his action by
merely amending the complaint." Id. at 1066-67.
Holmes' complaint was dismissed for failure either to exhaust
his state court remedies or to state a cognizable claim under §
1983. Because Holmes may be able to save this action by amending
his complaint to state a claim for money damages for loss of good
time credits (if any), the order which he seeks to appeal is not an
appealable final order. 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