UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7768

CHARLES CARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORREC- TIONS; ODIE WASHINGTON, Director, DC Depart- ment of Corrections; HULON L. WILLIS, Contract Monitor for DC Department of Corrections; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; RONALD ANGELONE, Director for Department of Corrections, Vir- ginia; RUFUS FLEMING; EDDIE PEARSON, Chief Warden, Virginia Department of Corrections; DAVID B. EVERETT, Assistant Warden, Virginia Department of Corrections; JAMILLA F. BURNEY; HOUSTON SHIFLETT, Segregation Unit Manager, Virginia Department of Corrections; IVAN T. GILMORE, Major, Virginia Department of Correc- tions; KENNETH TURNER, Lieutenant, Virginia Department of Corrections; SERGEANT BULLOCK, Virginia Department of Corrections; LARRY WYCHE, Sergeant, Virginia Department of Corrections; MARVIN TRISVAN, Sergeant, Vir- ginia Department of Corrections; R. ARFT, Sergeant, Virginia Department of Corrections; M. BROWN, Sergeant, Virginia Department of Corrections; W. SKINNER, Sergeant, Virginia Department of Corrections; CORRECTIONAL OFFI- CER HAWES, Virginia Department of Corrections; C. SCOTT, Correctional Officer, Virginia Department of Corrections; ELLESWORTH C. MURRAY, Institutional Investigator, Virginia Department of Corrections; J. K. VAUGHAN, SR., Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Virginia Depart ment of Corrections; ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Mayor of District of Columbia; MARGARET MOORE, Former Director, DC Department Of Corrections; CALVIN EDWARDS; ADRIENNE POTEAT, Temporary Acting Director, DC Department of Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-00-631-2)

Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Card, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Charles Card appeals from a district court order dismissing

without prejudice his complaint alleging civil rights violations

under

(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). The court dis-

missed Card’s complaint because he failed to pay his filing fee as

directed or properly certify that he could not pay such a fee.

Because Card may proceed with this action in the district court by

amending his complaint to provide the information requested by the

court, his appeal is interlocutory and not subject to appellate

review. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,

(4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3