Case Name: Stanley Curtis RHODES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA POLICE DEPARTMENT; Police Officer Carpenter; Casandre Burns, Municipality's Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-26
Citations: 14 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 00-7783
Parties: Stanley Curtis RHODES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA POLICE DEPARTMENT; Police Officer Carpenter; Casandre Burns, Municipality’s Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 14
Pages: 238–238

Head Matter:
Stanley Curtis RHODES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA POLICE DEPARTMENT; Police Officer Carpenter; Casandre Burns, Municipality’s Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-7783.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2001.
Decided July 26, 2001.
Stanley Curtis Rhodes, pro se.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Stanley Curtis Rhodes appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983'(West Supp.2000) action for failure to comply with the court's order that he particularize and amend his complaint. Because the district court's dismissal was without prejudice, it is not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. If he chooses, Rhodes may refile his complaint in district court, being careful to be sufficiently particular in the details of his claim to satisfy the district court's prior order. We also deny Rhodes' motion for the appointment of counsel. See Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160,163 (4th Cir.1984).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.