Case Name: Calvin Ruffin MALLORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-29
Citations: 358 F. App'x 432
Docket Number: No. 09-7458
Parties: Calvin Ruffin MALLORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 432–433

Head Matter:
Calvin Ruffin MALLORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-7458.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 29, 2009.
Calvin Ruffin Mallory, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Ruffin Mallory seeks to appeal the district court's dismissal of his complaint without prejudice because he failed to comply with the district court's October 4, 2002, order enjoining him from filing pleadings that do not comport with certain requirements, such as legibility and submission on the proper forms.
Generally, a district court's dismissal of a complaint without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 892, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that "a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case") (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, "if the grounds of the dismissal make clear that no amendment could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case, the order dismissing the complaint is final in fact and [appellate jurisdiction exists]." Id. at 1066 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, Mallory may be able to save his action by amending his complaint to comply with the district court's October 4, 2002, order. Therefore, the district court's dismissal of Mallory's complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal 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 air the decisional process.
DISMISSED.