Case Name: John Paul SMITH, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Virginia Department of Corrections; Gene M. Johnson, VDOC Director; Fred Schilling, VDOC Health Services Director; Powhatan Correctional Center; Eddie L. Pearson, Warden; Asst. Warden Medical Bailey; Doctor RODR; Nurse Spigle, RN, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-06
Citations: 239 F. App'x 782
Docket Number: No. 07-6273
Parties: John Paul SMITH, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Virginia Department of Corrections; Gene M. Johnson, VDOC Director; Fred Schilling, VDOC Health Services Director; Powhatan Correctional Center; Eddie L. Pearson, Warden; Asst. Warden Medical Bailey; Doctor RODR; Nurse Spigle, RN, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 782–783

Head Matter:
John Paul SMITH, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Virginia Department of Corrections; Gene M. Johnson, VDOC Director; Fred Schilling, VDOC Health Services Director; Powhatan Correctional Center; Eddie L. Pearson, Warden; Asst. Warden Medical Bailey; Doctor RODR; Nurse Spigle, RN, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-6273.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 30, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 6, 2007.
John Paul Smith, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John Paul Smith seeks to appeal the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his civil action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Smith seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral 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 aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Because Smith's complaint was dismissed without prejudice and the relevant defect can be cured by amending the complaint, the dismissal order is interlocutory and not appeal-able. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993).