holding that a dis- missal without prejudice is not reviewable unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could cure its defects
How later courts described this case
- holding that a dis- missal without prejudice is not reviewable unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could cure its defects
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6031
HILTON LAWRENCE BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
98-3925-CCB)
Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999
Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hilton Lawrence Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hilton Lawrence Brown appeals the district court’s order dis-
missing his complaint without prejudice. This court may generally
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(1994). Because Brown may be able to save this action by amending
his complaint, the district court’s order is not an appealable
final order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that a dis-
missal without prejudice is not reviewable unless the reasons
stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the
complaint could cure its defects). We therefore dismiss the ap-
peal. 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.
DISMISSED
2