Case ID: f-appx_551/html/0083-01.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

Anthony Fred MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William BYARS; Michael McCall; Brian Degeorgis; Dennis Arrowood; Travis Thurber; Ms. Synder; Brandon Eich, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-7639.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 21, 2014.
    Decided: Jan. 24, 2014.
    Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Fred Martin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Martin v. Byars, No. 4:13-ev-02067-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 23, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       While a dismissal without prejudice generally is interlocutory and not appealable, because "the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case," we conclude that the order dismissing Martin's complaint is an appealable final order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).