Case Name: Michael Charles WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Warden; S. Bates, Correctional Officer; Correctional Officer Plogger; Lieutenant Dawson; Correctional Officer Ringold; Major Redmon; Mr. Peters; L.W. Huffman, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-30
Citations: 6 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 01-6090
Parties: Michael Charles WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Warden; S. Bates, Correctional Officer; Correctional Officer Plogger; Lieutenant Dawson; Correctional Officer Ringold; Major Redmon; Mr. Peters; L.W. Huffman, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 6
Pages: 208–208

Head Matter:
Michael Charles WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Warden; S. Bates, Correctional Officer; Correctional Officer Plogger; Lieutenant Dawson; Correctional Officer Ringold; Major Redmon; Mr. Peters; L.W. Huffman, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-6090.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 22, 2001.
Decided March 30, 2001.
Michael Charles Wilson, pro se.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Charles Wilson appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000), for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U .S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(l) (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilson v. Augusta Corr. Ctr., No. CA-00-946-7 (W.D.Va. filed Dec. 20, 2000; entered Dec. 21, 2000). 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 not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir.1993). We find, however, that the district court's order is a final, appealable order because no amendment can cure the defect in Wilson's complaint. Id. at 1066-67.