Case Name: Daniel L. STALEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doe RIDER, Mental Health Counselor at Kirkland Correctional Institution R & E Center; Unidentified Individuals, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-15
Citations: 114 F. App'x 83
Docket Number: No. 04-6210
Parties: Daniel L. STALEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Doe RIDER, Mental Health Counselor at Kirkland Correctional Institution R & E Center; Unidentified Individuals, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 83–83

Head Matter:
Daniel L. STALEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Doe RIDER, Mental Health Counselor at Kirkland Correctional Institution R & E Center; Unidentified Individuals, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-6210.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2004.
Decided Nov. 15, 2004.
Daniel L. Staley, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel L. Staley appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to comply with an order of the magistrate judge. Staley contends in his informal brief that he did not receive that order, and that an examination of the prison mail logs will support his contention. We decline to remand the case for a determination of whether Staley did or did not receive the order in question. We conclude that, even if Staley did not receive the order, his complaint is subject to summary dismissal as it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court dismissing the complaint without prejudice. 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
Though a dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not a final, appealable order, see Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993), the applicable three-year statute of limitations period appears to have passed in this case. See S.C.Code Ann. § 15-3-530(5) (Law.Coop.Cum.Supp.2003). Thus, the order is effectively a final order.