Case Name: Frank M. NEFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS; Commissioner of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-01
Citations: 101 F. App'x 914
Docket Number: No. 03-7941
Parties: Frank M. NEFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS; Commissioner of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 914–915

Head Matter:
Frank M. NEFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS; Commissioner of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-7941.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 24, 2004.
Decided July 1, 2004.
Frank M. Neff, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Frank M. Neff appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with its order to file a supplemental complaint to cure the defects in the original complaint.
The district court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See 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 could cure the defects in the complaint. Id. at 1067. In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, we must determine "whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint." Id. Because Neff may cure the defect in his complaint by filing a supplemental complaint in accordance with the district court's order, the dismissal order is not appealable.
Accordingly, we deny Neffs motion for appointment of counsel 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