Lloyd v. McLeod

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7760
GRADY EDWARD LLOYD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
P.E. MCLEOD, Warden; FNU MACTAGGART, Associate
Warden; FNU CLAYTON, Associate Warden; FNU
RANDELL, Official,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-02-3137-2-18-BG)
Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 5, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Grady Edward Lloyd, Appellant Pro se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Grady Edward Lloyd appeals from the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 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 [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, Lloyd may move in
the district court to reopen his case and to file an amended
complaint specifically alleging facts sufficient to state a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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