Case Name: William F. MARTIN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin Scott BRACKETT, Solicitor of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Union and York County to be sued in his Individual and Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-15
Citations: 485 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 12-1896
Parties: William F. MARTIN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin Scott BRACKETT, Solicitor of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Union and York County to be sued in his Individual and Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 485
Pages: 634–635

Head Matter:
William F. MARTIN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin Scott BRACKETT, Solicitor of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Union and York County to be sued in his Individual and Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-1896.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 11, 2012.
Decided: Oct. 15, 2012.
William F. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William F. Martin, Jr., appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing without prejudice Martin's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Martin v. Brackett, No. 0:12-cv00054-RBH (D.S.C. June 28, 2012); see Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 422, 427, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); Carter v. Burch, 34 F.3d 257, 262-63 (4th Cir.1994). 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.
While dismissals without prejudice generally are interlocutory and not appealable, a dismissal without prejudice may be final if no amendment to the complaint can cure the defect in the plaintiff's case. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). On the available record, we conclude that the defect identified by the district court cannot be cured by an amendment to the complaint and that the order therefore is appealable.