Case Name: Patricia Lee GREENWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORIGEN FINANCIAL INC, d/b/a Dynex Financial Inc; Jeffrey L. Silver; Ivan J. Toney; The Housing Board; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Ivan Southerland; Mike Anderson; Phillip D. Maynard; Supreme Court of South Carolina, Disciplinary Course, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-29
Citations: 70 F. App'x 137
Docket Number: No. 03-1595
Parties: Patricia Lee GREENWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORIGEN FINANCIAL INC, d/b/a Dynex Financial Inc; Jeffrey L. Silver; Ivan J. Toney; The Housing Board; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Ivan Southerland; Mike Anderson; Phillip D. Maynard; Supreme Court of South Carolina, Disciplinary Course, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
Patricia Lee GREENWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORIGEN FINANCIAL INC, d/b/a Dynex Financial Inc; Jeffrey L. Silver; Ivan J. Toney; The Housing Board; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Ivan Southerland; Mike Anderson; Phillip D. Maynard; Supreme Court of South Carolina, Disciplinary Course, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-1595.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2003.
Decided July 29, 2003.
Patricia Lee Greenway, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Patricia Lee Greenway appeals from the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her complaint without prejudice. 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 [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case.' " Id. at 1067 (quoting Conisten 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, the court must determine "whether the plaintiff could save [her] action by merely amending [her] complaint." Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, Greenway may move in the district court to reopen her case and to file an amended complaint specifically alleging facts sufficient to state a claim within the district court's jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2000). Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable. 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.