Case Name: Grady Edward LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.E. MCLEOD, Warden; FNU Mactaggart, Associate Warden; FNU Clayton, Associate Warden; FNU Randell, Official, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-05
Citations: 55 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 02-7760
Parties: Grady Edward LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.E. MCLEOD, Warden; FNU Mactaggart, Associate Warden; FNU Clayton, Associate Warden; FNU Randell, Official, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
Grady Edward LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.E. MCLEOD, Warden; FNU Mactaggart, Associate Warden; FNU Clayton, Associate Warden; FNU Randell, Official, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-7760.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.
Decided Feb. 5, 2003.
Grady Edward Lloyd, Appellant Pro se.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Grady Edward Lloyd appeals from the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union §92, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if " 'no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case.' " Id. at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir.1988)). In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is renewable in this court, the court must determine "whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint." Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, Lloyd may move in the district court to reopen his case and to file an amended complaint specifically alleging facts sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable. 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.