
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-6028.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 16, 2002.
    Decided May 23, 2002.
    James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    
      Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

James A. Butler appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing his Fed. R.Crim.P. 41(e) motion without prejudice and denying his motion for reconsideration. A dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if no amendment of the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, we must determine whether Butler could save his motion by merely amending and refiling. See id.

Because Butler’s motion was dismissed without prejudice, Butler could file either another Rule 41(e) motion, amended in accordance with the district court’s instructions, and/or a motion for authorization from this court to file a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) motion attacking his underlying conviction. In fact, after Butler’s motion was denied, he filed an amended Rule 41(e) motion in district court. Therefore, the district court’s orders are not appealable. Accordingly, we deny premission to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under Domino Sugar. 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.  