Case ID: f-appx_14/html/0238-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stanley Curtis RHODES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA POLICE DEPARTMENT; Police Officer Carpenter; Casandre Burns, Municipality’s Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-7783.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2001.
    Decided July 26, 2001.
    Stanley Curtis Rhodes, pro se.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Stanley Curtis Rhodes appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983'(West Supp.2000) action for failure to comply with the court’s order that he particularize and amend his complaint. Because the district court’s dismissal was without prejudice, it is not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. If he chooses, Rhodes may refile his complaint in district court, being careful to be sufficiently particular in the details of his claim to satisfy the district court’s prior order. We also deny Rhodes’ motion for the appointment of counsel. See Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160,163 (4th Cir.1984).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.