Case Name: James L. JACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer FLOURNOY; Officer Brown; Officer Levesque; Lieutenant Werlin, Shift Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-30
Citations: 33 F. App'x 128
Docket Number: No. 02-6155
Parties: James L. JACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer FLOURNOY; Officer Brown; Officer Levesque; Lieutenant Werlin, Shift Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 33
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
James L. JACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer FLOURNOY; Officer Brown; Officer Levesque; Lieutenant Werlin, Shift Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6155.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 18, 2002.
Decided April 30, 2002.
James L. Jack, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James L. Jack appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001). The court dismissed Jack's complaint based on his failure to allege sufficient facts regarding the knowledge of named defendants in reference to a specific risk to Jack's safety while incarcerated. Because Jack might proceed with this action by amending his complaint to provide the information specified by the district court, the dismissal order is not final and thus is not subject to appellate review. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 892, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).
We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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.