UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2634

JANICE L. NORMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

MONTGOMERY COLLEGE; BOARD OF TRUSTEES; AF- FIRMATIVE ACTION OFFICE; FRANCIS COATES; DOC- TOR GOLDENBERG; BRIANNE FRIEL; WOMEN’S STUDIES PROGRAM; WOMEN’S STUDIES SCHOLARSHIP COMMIT- TEE, Division of English Department; GEORGE JEFFERSON, at Montgomery College; DISABILITY SUPPORT SERVICES; FINANCIAL AID OFFICE; JOAN GOUGH, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 98-2520-DKC)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 5, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janice L. Norman, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Wellington Thompson, Jr., County Attorney, Joanne Robertson, COUNTY ATTORNEY’s OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Darrell Robert VanDeusen, Clifford Bernard Geiger, KOLLMAN & SHEEHAN, Baltimore, Maryland; Joan Bossman Gordon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Janice L. Norman appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994). Because Norman may be able to save this action by amending her complaint, the district court’s order is not an appealable final order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993) (a dismissal without prejudice is not reviewable unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could cure its defects). We therefore dismiss the appeal without prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED