Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): CURIAM: Robb M. Harksen appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000) his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s dismissal of Harksen’s due process and access to courts claims. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harksen v. Braxton, No. CA-04-242 (W-D.Va. Oct. 28, 2004); see also Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). With regard to Harksen’s Eighth Amendment 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case (B) holding that denial of a postconviction motion without prejudice and with leave to amend is not a final appealable order (C) holding that a plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of his claims with prejudice constituted a final order that was appealable (D) holding that an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is a final appealable order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the  case internal quotation marks omitted (E) holding that dismissal without prejudice is final appealable order where no amendment to complaint could cure deficiencies identified by district court
Output (English): holding that denial of a postconviction motion without prejudice and with leave to amend is not a final appealable order