Case Name: Muhammad Abd Saleem EURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAYO, sued in individual capacity; Martin, sued in individual capacity; F. Fields, sued in individual capacity; Johnson, sued in individual capacity; Mr. Glende, sued in individual capacity; A. Jones, sued in individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-29
Citations: 25 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 01-7486
Parties: Muhammad Abd Saleem EURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAYO, sued in individual capacity; Martin, sued in individual capacity; F. Fields, sued in individual capacity; Johnson, sued in individual capacity; Mr. Glende, sued in individual capacity; A. Jones, sued in individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 25
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
Muhammad Abd Saleem EURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAYO, sued in individual capacity; Martin, sued in individual capacity; F. Fields, sued in individual capacity; Johnson, sued in individual capacity; Mr. Glende, sued in individual capacity; A. Jones, sued in individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7486.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2002.
Decided Jan. 29, 2002.
Muhammad Abd Saleem Eury, pro se.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Muhammad Abd Saleem Eury appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. The court dismissed Eury's complaint because he failed to comply with an order directing him to either submit an adequate number of copies of the complaint or pay $5.50 for copying fees. Because Eury may proceed with this action by supplying an adequate number of copies of the complaint or paying the requisite fee, the order in question is not a final, appealable order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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 aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.