Case Name: Robert Dale SMART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan WILSON, SC Att. General; Bradford Cranshaw, Attorney; John Belton White, Attorney; Sam White, Public Safety Dir.; Dr. Ravenell Smith, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-24
Citations: 471 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: No. 11-7411
Parties: Robert Dale SMART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan WILSON, SC Att. General; Bradford Cranshaw, Attorney; John Belton White, Attorney; Sam White, Public Safety Dir.; Dr. Ravenell Smith, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 165–165

Head Matter:
Robert Dale SMART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan WILSON, SC Att. General; Bradford Cranshaw, Attorney; John Belton White, Attorney; Sam White, Public Safety Dir.; Dr. Ravenell Smith, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-7411.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2012.
Decided: April 24, 2012.
Robert Dale Smart, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Dale Smart appeals the district court's order accepting the reeommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smart v. Wilson, No. 2:1 1-cv-02087-GRA, 2011 WL 4808203 (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 2011). We deny Smart's motions to amend the caption and for default judgment. 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.
No amendment to Smart's complaint could save his action; thus, the district court's dismissal without prejudice is a final, appealable order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993).