UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1596

NANCY LEE BOGART, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus PARNELLI JONES; GENERAL TIRE; GENCORP; DOES 1- 20; LAW OFFICE OF MOEN & HARTMAN; LAW OFFICE OF MOEN & HERTZ; JOHN T. MOEN; STEVEN H. HERTZ; JEFFERY R. HARTMAN; JOSEPH J. IACOPINO; IACOPINO & BYERS; DAVID C. BYERS; DANIEL W. DUNBAR; DAVID S. SABIH; BELLI & SABIH; MELVIN M. BELLI; DAVID S. SABIH & ASSOCIATES; JAMES T. WEIR; JOHN FISKE BROWN ASSOCIATES; PAUL C. STIMSON; JAY ARMES; THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TORRANCE, TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA; THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NORWALK, NORWALK, CALIFORNIA, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-1597

NANCY LEE BOGART, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH J. IACOPINO; IACOPINO & BYERS; JAMES WEIR; NEIL TOGERSON; DOES 1-20; LAW OFFICE OF2 MOEN & HARTMAN; LAW OFFICE OF MOEN & HERTZ; JOHN T. MOEN; STEVEN H. HERTZ; JEFFERY R.HARTMAN; PARNELLI JONES; GENERAL TIRE; GENCORP; DAVID C. BYERS; DANIEL W. DUNBAR; DAVID S. SABIH & ASSOCIATES; BELLI & SABIH; MELVIN M. BELLI; DAVID S. SABIH; JOHN FISKE BROWN ASSOCIATES; PAUL C. STIMSON; JAY ARMES; THESUPERIOR COURT OF TORRANCE, TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; SUPERIOR COURT OFORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA; THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NORWALK, NORWALK, CALIFORNIA, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-1598

NANCY LEE BOGART, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LAW OFFICE OF MOEN & HARTMAN; JOHN T. MOEN; STEVEN H. HERTZ; JEFFERY R. HARTMAN; DOES 1-20; LAW OFFICE OF MOEN & HERTZ; PARNELLI JONES; GENERAL TIRE; GENCORP; JOSEPH J. IACOPINO; IACOPINO & BYERS; DAVID C. BYERS; DANIEL W. DUNBAR; DAVID S. SABIH; BELLI & SABIH; MELVIN M. BELLI; DAVID S. SABIH; JAMES T. WEIR; JOHN FISKE BROWN ASSOCIATES; JAY ARMES; THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TORRANCE; TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY; SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NORWALK, NORWALK, CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants - Appellees.3 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-245-A, CA-94-246-A, CA-96-247-A) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy Lee Bogart, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).4 PER CURIAM:In these consolidated appeals, Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing her complaints without prejudice onjurisdictional grounds. A 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 preju dice could be final if "no amendment [to the complaint] could cure defects in the plaintiff's case." Id. at 1067. In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must determine "whether the plaintiff could save her action by merely amending the complaint." Id. at 1066-67. Because Appellant could have amended her complaint to correct jurisdictional flaws and to state some claims, the dismissal orders are not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. 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