Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06297/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06297-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6297

LE’ROY ANTONIO SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

M. E. LOVELY, Detective; KEVIN A. PURNELL, PO II, Detective NPD;

PAUL FRAIM, Mayor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00533-REP)

Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 5, 2008

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Le’Roy Antonio Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6297 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/05/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
*

Generally, dismissals without prejudice are interlocutory and

not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union

392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). However, a dismissal

without prejudice could be final if no amendment to the complaint

would cure the defect in the plaintiff’s case. Id. at 1066-67. We

conclude that the defect in this case (the failure to comply with

a court order) can only be cured by something more than an

amendment to the complaint and that the order is therefore

appealable. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Le’Roy Antonio Smith appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint

for failure to comply with a court order.* In his informal

appellate brief, Smith fails to address the district court’s basis

for dismissing his case. Therefore, Smith has waived appellate

review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit

its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Smith v.

Lovely, No. 3:07-cv-00533-REP (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 08-6297 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/05/2008 Pg: 2 of 2