Case Name: Le'Roy Antonio SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.E. LOVELY, Detective; Kevin A. Purnell, PO II, Detective NPD; Paul Fraim, Mayor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-05
Citations: 280 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 08-6297
Parties: Le’Roy Antonio SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.E. LOVELY, Detective; Kevin A. Purnell, PO II, Detective NPD; Paul Fraim, Mayor, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 280
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
Le’Roy Antonio SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.E. LOVELY, Detective; Kevin A. Purnell, PO II, Detective NPD; Paul Fraim, Mayor, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-6297.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 29, 2008.
Decided: June 5, 2008.
Le’Roy Antonio Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Le'Roy Antonio Smith appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to comply with a court order. In his informal appellate brief, Smith fails to address the district court's basis for dismissing his case. Therefore, Smith has waived appellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ("The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief."). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. Smith v. Lovely, No. 3:07-cv-00533-REP (E.D.Va. Jan. 17, 2008). 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 interlocutory and not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir.1993). However, a dismissal without prejudice could be final if no amendment to the complaint would cure the defect in the plaintiff's case. Id. at 1066-67. We conclude that the defect in this case (the failure to comply with a court order) can only be cured by something more than an amendment to the complaint and that the order is therefore appealable.