Case Name: Paul GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Corporal Hamilton; Chief Wells, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-15
Citations: 133 F. App'x 902
Docket Number: No. 05-6237
Parties: Paul GRAHAM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Corporal Hamilton; Chief Wells, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 902–903

Head Matter:
Paul GRAHAM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Corporal Hamilton; Chief Wells, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-6237.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 9, 2005.
Decided June 15, 2005.
Paul Graham, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Paul Graham appeals from an order of the district court dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to provide the court with an updated mailing address. This court has held "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." ' Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.1993). Because Graham may refile his complaint and provide the court with his new address, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Graham's motions for appointment of counsel and 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