UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7483

MICHAEL LEE BOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

MICHELLE MITCHELL, Sheriff, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-96)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 29, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lee Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the re- port and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice is not reviewable by the court unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could cure its defects. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). In the present case, the district court properly found that Appellant failed to allege all the elements necessary to support a claim that prison officials were responsible for the injuries suffered at the hands of other inmates. Thus, it is not clear that no amendment to the complaint could cure the defect.

Though the court's order dismissed the action without preju- dice, it also advises Appellant that he could appeal to this court.

Because the court did not certify the appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1994), we conclude this was just an inadvertent mistake. Because Appellant may amend his complaint to cure its defects, we dismiss the appeal. 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