
    Charles CARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Odie Washington, Director, DC Department of Corrections; Hulon L. Willis, Contract Monitor for DC Department of Corrections; Commonwealth of Virginia; Ronald Angelone, Director for Department of Corrections, Virginia; 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 Corrections; Kenneth Turner, Lieutenant, Virginia Department of Corrections; Sergeant Bullock, Virginia Department of Corrections; Larry Wyche, Sergeant, Virginia Department of Corrections; Marvin Trisvan, Sergeant, Virginia 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 Officer 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 Department 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.
    No. 00-7768.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2001.
    Decided March 16, 2001.
    Charles Card, pro se.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Charles Card appeals from a district court order dismissing without prejudice his complaint alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). The court dismissed 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, 10 F.Sd 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.  