
    Robb M. HARKSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON; J. Armentrout, Warden; S. Mullins, Treatment Program Supervisor; Counselor Kegley; Counselor Lewis; K. McCoy; Ms. Lawson; L. Huffman, Regional Director; Counselor Jessee; J. Fanin; Gene Johnson, Deputy Director; R.A. Young; S. Fleming; H. Duncan, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-6014.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 17, 2005.
    Decided: July 7, 2005.
    Robb M. Harksen, Appellant pro se.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Robb M. Harksen appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000) his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s dismissal of Harksen’s due process and access to courts claims. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harksen v. Braxton, No. CA-04-242 (W-D.Va. Oct. 28, 2004); see also Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that dismissal without prejudice is final, appealable order where no amendment to complaint could cure deficiencies identified by district court).

With regard to Harksen’s Eighth Amendment claims, we find that this portion of the district court’s order is not appealable. Harksen may cure the defects identified by the court by filing an amended complaint. We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal. See Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 
      
       Harksen also appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b). Because he failed to challenge the court's disposition of that motion in his informal brief, he has waived appellate review of that order. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
     