UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7095
DANIEL DENO RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BERKELEY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-02-1261-9-23)
Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: December 11, 2002
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Deno Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Deno Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)
complaint. Richardson’s case was referred to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge
recommended that Richardson’s complaint be dismissed without
prejudice and advised Richardson that failure to file timely
specific written objections to this recommendation could waive
further judicial review, including appellate review if the
recommendation is accepted by the district court. The district
court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation given
Richardson’s apparent failure to respond to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation. The record discloses that Richardson’s
response to the magistrate judge’s report was filed in the district
court the same day the district court entered its order dismissing
his complaint without prejudice. On appeal, Richardson contends
that his objections were timely filed.
Assuming, without deciding, that Richardson’s response was
timely filed and that his objections to the magistrate judge’s
report were sufficiently specific, we nevertheless find that this
appeal is interlocutory. The district court dismissed Richardson’s
complaint without prejudice. Because Richardson may be able to
proceed with this action by amending his complaint, the dismissal
order is not final and thus is not subject to appellate review.
2
See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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
3