Case Name: UNITED STATES of america, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Michael MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-22
Citations: 60 F. App'x 953
Docket Number: No. 02-7920
Parties: UNITED STATES of america, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Michael MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 953–953

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of america, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Michael MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7920.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2003.
Decided April 22, 2003.
James Michael Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Arnold L. Husser, OFfíce Of The United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Michael Morris appeals from the magistrate judge's order dismissing without prejudice his "Motion for Modification of Sentence Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)." The magistrate judge dismissed the action "without prejudice to petitioner filing a corrected motion on the proper § 2255 forms." See United States v. Morris, Nos. CR-97-272; CR-98-57; CR-98-59; CR-98-62; CA-02-999 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 2002). Instead of heeding the magistrate judge's advice, Morris appealed. Because the dismissal order is without prejudice, it is not appeal-able under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if "no amendment [to the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case." Id. at 1067 (internal quotation and citation omitted)). In this case, Morris may file an amended complaint in the district court by submitting it on the proper forms. Therefore, the order appealed from is an interlocutory, unappealable order. Id. at 1066-77. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Morris' pending motion to remand. 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