Case Name: Carlos R. MAYBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charvette HENSON-BECKETT, Assistant Warden; Penny L. Cully, Librarian; Robert Koppel, Warden; Gary Mayberry; Carlton Applewhite; Martin O'Malley; Technology Development Corporation; Mary L. Livers, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-29
Citations: 298 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 08-7134
Parties: Carlos R. MAYBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charvette HENSON-BECKETT, Assistant Warden; Penny L. Cully, Librarian; Robert Koppel, Warden; Gary Mayberry; Carlton Applewhite; Martin O’Malley; Technology Development Corporation; Mary L. Livers, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 285–285

Head Matter:
Carlos R. MAYBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charvette HENSON-BECKETT, Assistant Warden; Penny L. Cully, Librarian; Robert Koppel, Warden; Gary Mayberry; Carlton Applewhite; Martin O’Malley; Technology Development Corporation; Mary L. Livers, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-7134.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2008.
Decided: Oct. 29, 2008.
Carlos R. Mayberry, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carlos R. Mayberry appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice Mayberry's complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Because Mayberry may resubmit his complaint as amended to cure the defects identified by the district court, the dismissal order is not appeal-able. See Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Mayberry's motions for extension and for injunctive relief are denied. 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.