Case Name: Derek N. JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-01
Citations: 394 F. App'x 11
Docket Number: No. 10-1667
Parties: Derek N. JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 394
Pages: 11–12

Head Matter:
Derek N. JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-1667.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 26, 2010.
Decided: Sept. 1, 2010.
Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice. The district court dismissed the complaint because Jarvis did not comply with Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), requiring a short and plain statement of his claims.
Generally, a district court's dismissal of a complaint without prejudice is not ap-pealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that "a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case") (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, Jarvis would be able to save his action by amending his complaint to comply with the district court's order. Therefore, the district court's dismissal of Jarvis' complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final 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.