Case ID: f-appx_71/html/0285-01.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

Errol Douglass FULFORD-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lloyd L. WATERS, Warden; James Yonker; Jacquelen Shank; Captain Sotalmyer; J. Lynch; James Peguess, Warden; Sargeant Myers; K.O. Williams, Lieutenant; Clark Jenty, Correctional Officer Ii; Correctional Officer Cooper; Sargeant Hancock; Gary Foreman, Lieutenant; William W. Sondervan; Marvin N. Robbins, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-6785.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.
    Decided Aug. 21, 2003.
    Errol Douglass Fulford-El, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Errol Douglass Fulford-El appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice. The district court dismissed the complaint because Fulford-El did not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, requiring a short and plain statement of his claims. Because Fulford-El may cure this defect by amending his complaint, the dismissal without prejudice is not a final, appealable order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Fulford-El’s motion for transfer to another institution. 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. 
      
       To the extent Fulford-El attempts to appeal orders from Fulford-El v. Robbins, No. CA-03-1200-1, this appeal was separately docketed, and Fulford-El filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. Therefore, we do not consider those orders.