UNPUBLISHED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 OF
2

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; 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. 96-1598

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 on

jurisdictional 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 prejudice 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