Moses v. Fisher ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6502
EDWARD L. MOSES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DAVID R. FISHER; COUNTY OF STANLY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-98-686-1)
Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Edward L. Moses, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Jerome Murray, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Tyrus Vance Dahl, Jr., WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward L. Moses appeals the district court’s judgment adopting
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting the
Appellees’ motion to dismiss. Moses has abandoned appellate review
of his claim against the County of Stanly because he did not raise
the issue in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Thus, we
affirm as to that claim.
The district court dismissed without prejudice Moses’ claim
against David Fisher. “[A] plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal
of his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal
clearly indicate that no amendment [in the complaint] could cure
the defects in the plaintiff's case.” Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993) (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted). In ascertaining whether a dis-
missal without prejudice is reviewable in this Court, we must de-
termine whether Moses “could save his action by merely amending his
complaint." Id. at 1066-67. Because the grounds for dismissal of
this claim show that Moses could save the action by filing an
amended complaint in the district court, that part of the order
dismissing the claim against Fisher is not appealable. Thus, we
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the appeal from the judgment
dismissing without prejudice Moses’ claim against Fisher.
2
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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
3