Case Name: Sylvester E. HARDING, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain R. ROUSH; Lieutenant D. Bullard; Clayton Richard, U.S. Supreme Court; Officer A. Brown; Billy West, Cumberland County District Attorney; Robbie Dick; Claire Hill, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-26
Citations: 547 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 13-7390
Parties: Sylvester E. HARDING, III, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Captain R. ROUSH; Lieutenant D. Bullard; Clayton Richard, U.S. Supreme Court; Officer A. Brown; Billy West, Cumberland County District Attorney; Robbie Dick; Claire Hill, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 547
Pages: 227–227

Head Matter:
Sylvester E. HARDING, III, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Captain R. ROUSH; Lieutenant D. Bullard; Clayton Richard, U.S. Supreme Court; Officer A. Brown; Billy West, Cumberland County District Attorney; Robbie Dick; Claire Hill, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-7390.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.
Decided: Nov. 26, 2013.
Sylvester E. Harding, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sylvester E. Harding, III, appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012) for failure to state a claim, and its order denying his motion for reconsideration and various related post-judgment motions. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Harding's informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court's dispositions, Harding has forfeited appellate review of the court's orders. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment and post-judgment order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Based on the district judge's opinion, we conclude that the dismissal was without prejudice, despite a statement to the contrary in the court's text order denying reconsideration. Although dismissals without prejudice generally are interlocutory and not appeal-able, here the court's order of dismissal is a final one, as the grounds for dismissal indicate that Harding could not "save his action by merely amending his complaint." Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).