Case Name: Jorge GEVARA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA GUILFORD COUNTY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-27
Citations: 489 F. App'x 745
Docket Number: No. 12-7173
Parties: Jorge GEVARA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA GUILFORD COUNTY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 489
Pages: 745–745

Head Matter:
Jorge GEVARA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA GUILFORD COUNTY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7173.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 27, 2012.
Jorge Gevara, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Gevara seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice because he failed to file it on the proper forms and failed to submit either the required filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Generally, a district court's dismissal of a complaint without prejudice is not appeal-able. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). However, "if the grounds of the dismissal make clear that no amendment could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case, the order dismissing the complaint is final in fact and appellate jurisdiction exists." Id. at 1066 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
In this case, Gevara may be able to save his petition by amending it to comply with the district court's order. Therefore, the court's order dismissing Gevara's petition without prejudice is not an appealable order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.