UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7158
VERNELL A. JEFFRIES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
DONTAY HARRIS; HARRY SHAUCK,
Plaintiffs,
versus
PRIVATE OWNERS; SUPERINTENDENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-1263-7)
Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: March 23, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished pre curiam opinion.
Vernell A. Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Vernell A. Jeffries appeals from the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)
complaint for want of prosecution. The district court dismissed
Jeffries’ complaint because he failed to notify the district court
that his address changed, and, because of that failure,
correspondence from the court addressed to Jeffries was returned as
undeliverable. The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is
not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers’ Local
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal
without prejudice is a final order only if “‘no amendment [in the
complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Id.
at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 844
F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether a
dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, we must
determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely
amending his complaint.” Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In
this case, Jeffries may move in the district court to reopen his
case and to file a signed complaint giving his present address.
See Fed R. Civ. P. 11(a). Therefore, the dismissal order is not
appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. 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