UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6014
ROBB M. HARKSEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
D. A. BRAXTON; J. ARMENTROUT, Warden; S.
MULLINS, Treatment Program Supervisor;
COUNSELOR KEGLEY; COUNSELOR LEWIS; K. MCCOY;
MS. LAWSON; L. HUFFMAN, Regional Director;
COUNSELOR JESSEE; J. FANIN; GENE JOHNSON,
Deputy Director; R. A. YOUNG; S. FLEMING; H.
DUNCAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-04-242)
Submitted: June 17, 2005 Decided: July 7, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Robb M. Harksen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robb M. Harksen appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
(2000) his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for
failure to state a claim.* We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error in the district court’s dismissal of Harksen’s due
process and access to courts claims. Accordingly, we affirm this
portion of the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Harksen v. Braxton, No. CA-04-242 (W.D. Va.
Oct. 28, 2004); see also Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that
dismissal without prejudice is final, appealable order where no
amendment to complaint could cure deficiencies identified by
district court).
With regard to Harksen’s Eighth Amendment claims, we find
that this portion of the district court’s order is not appealable.
Harksen may cure the defects identified by the court by filing an
amended complaint. We therefore dismiss this portion of the
appeal. See Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
Harksen also appeals from the district court’s order denying
his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Because he failed to
challenge the court’s disposition of that motion in his informal
brief, he has waived appellate review of that order. 4th Cir. R.
34(b).
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -