Case Name: Cleven Lewis ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul GRAZIANO, Executive Director, Housing Authority of Baltimore City, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-13
Citations: 202 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 06-6858
Parties: Cleven Lewis ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul GRAZIANO, Executive Director, Housing Authority of Baltimore City, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 622–623

Head Matter:
Cleven Lewis ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul GRAZIANO, Executive Director, Housing Authority of Baltimore City, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-6858.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 13, 2006.
Cleven Lewis Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Maddox Riley, Samuel M. Riley, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cleven Lewis Roberson appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint for insufficiency of service of process. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Roberson v. Graziano, No. 1:05-cv-02725-RDB (D.Md. filed Apr. 27, 2006 & entered Apr. 28, 2006). 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.
AFFIRMED.
Generally, dismissals without prejudice are interlocutory and not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir.1993). However, a dismissal without prejudice could be final if no amendment to the complaint would cure the defect in the plaintiff's case. Id. at 1066-67. We conclude that the order is appealable because the defect in this case (the failure to serve Defendant) can only be cured by something more than an amendment to the complaint.