UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1699
MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN ZACKER,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 05-1910
MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN ZACKER,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 05-2016
MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN ZACKER; DAVID H. HYDE; SUSAN SIGAFOOS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
05-1660-8-PJM; CA-05-1978-PJM)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 22, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 05-1699 and 05-1910, affirmed; No. 05-2016, dismissed by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Michael J. Sindram appeals
district court orders denying his motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, denying his motion for clarification and modification and
dismissing without prejudice his complaint for failing to state a
claim. We have reviewed the records and the district court orders.
With respect to Appeal Nos. 05-1699 and 05-1910, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Sindram v. Zacker, No. CA-05-
1660-8-PJM (D. Md. June 20, 2005 & July 6, 2005). With respect to
Appeal No. 05-2016, the court dismissed without prejudice Sindram’s
complaint and instructed Sindram as to the deficiencies in the
complaint and how they may be cured. Because Sindram may refile
his complaint, the dismissal order is interlocutory and not
appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm
Nos. 05-1699 and 05-1910 and dismiss No. 05-2016. We grant
Sindram’s motions to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 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.
Nos. 05-1699/05-1910 - AFFIRMED
No. 05-2016 - DISMISSED
- 3 -