UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2200

MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

IRMA S. RAKER; G. R. HOVEY JOHNSON; EL AMIN;

THOMAS J. LOVE; THURMAN RHODES,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 04-2210

MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

IRMA S. RAKER; EL AMIN; THOMAS J. LOVE;

THURMAN RHODES; G. R. HOVEY JOHNSON,

Defendants - Appellees.
- 2 -

No. 04-2211

MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COLUMBIA UNION COLLEGE; RANDAL WISBEY; EARLENE

SIMMONS; VINCENT DUNBAR; DONNA POLK; PETER

FEENEY; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER; ROBERT MELLADO;

ODESSA SHANNON; MICHAEL DENNIS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA04-1790-PJM; CA-04-1898-PJM)

Submitted: November 22, 2004 Decided: January 18, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Michael J. Sindram appeals

district court orders dismissing his complaint against several

state court judges for failing to state a claim and dismissing

without prejudice for failing to state a claim his complaint

against Columbia Union College and several individuals. Sindram

also appeals orders denying his motions for reconsideration filed

in each case. With respect to Nos. 04-2200 and 04-2210, in which

Sindram appeals the district court order dismissing his complaint

against state court judges and denying his motion for

reconsideration, we have reviewed the record and the district court

orders and dismiss the appeals as frivolous on the reasoning of the

district court. See Sindram v. Raker, No. CA-04-1790-PJM (D. Md.

filed July 19, 2004; entered July 20, 2004, and September 21,

2004).

In No. 04-2211, Sindram appeals district court orders

dismissing without prejudice his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1981

(2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district

court’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino

Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67

(4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a final order

only if no amendment could cure the defects in the complaint. Id.

at 1067. In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is

reviewable in this court, we must determine “whether the plaintiff
- 4 -

could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” Id.

Because Sindram may cure the defect in his complaint by filing a

supplemental or amended complaint in accordance with the district

court’s order, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal from both orders. 

We dismiss as frivolous Nos. 04-2200 and 04-2210. We

dismiss No. 04-2211 under the rule announced in Domino Sugar. We

deny Sindram’s motion for appointment of counsel filed in No. 04-

2200 and the motion to deconsolidate the cases. 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