Case Name: James N. FLEMING; Ellison Jackson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, Defendant-Appellee, and Jane Doe; John Doe, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-20
Citations: 22 F. App'x 294
Docket Number: No. 01-1768
Parties: James N. FLEMING; Ellison Jackson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, Defendant-Appellee, and Jane Doe; John Doe, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 294–294

Head Matter:
James N. FLEMING; Ellison Jackson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, Defendant-Appellee, and Jane Doe; John Doe, Defendants.
No. 01-1768.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2001.
Decided Dec. 20, 2001.
J. Benjamin Dick, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Richard W. Schaffer, D. Hayden Fisher, Schaffer & Cabell, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James N. Fleming and Ellison Jackson ("Plaintiffs") appeal from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice their 42 U.S .C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) claim. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The district court's order dismissing without prejudice Plaintiffs' selective prosecution and liberty interest claims 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 [of 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 reviewable in this court, we must determine "whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint." Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67.
Because their complaint was dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiffs may yet file an amended complaint specifically alleging facts sufficient to state their claims under § 1983. Therefore, the dismissal order before us is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under Domino Sugar. 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.