Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (March 03, 2004)
Docket number: 03-7751
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/18198649
Id. vLex: VLEX-18198649
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITNo. 03-7751 AALON SMITH,Plaintiff - Appellant,versusDAVID ROBINSON, Warden of N.C.C.; T. JOHNSON,Correctional Officer; J. MARSHALL, LieutenantSupervisor,Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, DistrictJudge. (CA-03-660)Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: March 3, 2004Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Aalon Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Aalon Smith appeals the district court§ 1983 (2000) action. The districtcourt dismissed the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) forfailure to immediately notify the court of his change in address.Because of that failure, correspondence from the court addressed toSmith was returned as undeliverable. The district courtÂ’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. SeeDomino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if “‘no amendment [in thecomplaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiffÂ’s case.’” Id. at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether adismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, we mustdetermine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merelyamending his complaint.” Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, Smith may move in the district court to reopen his caseand to file a signed complaint giving his present address.Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts andlegal contentions are adequately presented in the materials beforethe court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED