UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1327
Y.B., a minor, by and through his mother I.F.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBINSON SECONDARY SCHOOL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00124-TSE-TCB)
Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Y.B., Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Cafferky, Patricia Amberly
Minson, BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Y.B., a minor child, by and through his mother,
appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to
transfer to another high school and dismissing without prejudice
his civil action. Y.B. also appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to amend the caption of his case. We affirm
in part and dismiss in part.
An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice
generally is not an appealable order, see Chao v. Rivendell
Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005), unless the
action cannot be saved by merely amending the complaint. See
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding appellate court may
evaluate particular grounds for dismissal to determine whether
plaintiff could save action by merely amending complaint). With
regard to the district court’s denial of Y.B.’s claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and
Title IX of the Education Act of 1971, we conclude that this
portion of the order is not appealable because Y.B. could amend
the complaint to cure the defects identified by the district
court. See id. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the
appeal under Domino Sugar.
Next, because Y.B. does not challenge on appeal the
basis for the district court’s denial of his motion to transfer,
2
he has forfeited appellate review of that portion of the
district court’s order. Finally, we find no error in the
district court’s denial of the motion to amend the caption.
Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3