UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6447
GREGORY RICE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND, in and for Washington County; FRED C.
WRIGHT, III; DONALD EUGENE BEACHLEY; DON MCDOWELL; CHARLES
STRONG; DANA MAYLAN, Ethics Commission; JOHN BARR,
President, Commissioner,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:08-cv-00590-PJM)
Submitted: September 28, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Rice, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Rice appeals the district court’s order
construing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as a petition
for writ of mandamus and dismissing it without prejudice. ∗ We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Although
the district court did not specifically address Rice’s claim of
the denial of access to courts, we find that the claim fails
because the defendants are immune from suit. Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); King v. Myers, 973 F.2d 354, 356-57
(4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
∗
Generally, dismissals without prejudice are interlocutory
and not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). However, a
dismissal without prejudice could be final if no amendment to
the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.
Id. at 1066-67. We conclude that the defects in this case
cannot be cured by an amendment to the complaint and that the
order is therefore appealable.
2