Chase Carmen HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas B. SMITH, individually and in his official capacity as a Florida State Judge; Rodriquez, Judge, individually and in his official capacity as a Florida State Judge; Gordon F. Willis, individually and in his official capacity as a Virginia State Judge; J. Martin Bass, individually and in his official capacity as a Virginia State Judge; Michael C. Allen, individually and in his official capacity as a Virginia State Judge; Sheri Pearson; Mitchel Kalmanson; Lester Kalmanson; Lester Kalmanson Agency, Inc.; Kal Adjusting I, LLC; Kenneth D. Morse, PA; Turkessa B. Rollins; James D. Fullerton Association, PC; Fullerton & Knowles, PC; Paul W. Higgs, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia; William Reyes, III, individually and in his official capacity as a Deputy for the City of Fredericksburg Sheriff and in his official capacity as a paid worker for the City of Fredericksburg; Whitney A. Ellis; Jeff Small, individually and in his official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia; Wayne Wertzer; Grant Kronenberg; City of Fredericksburg, VA; G.M. Haney, individually and in his official capacity as Treasurer of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia; Brenda A. Wood, individually and in her official capacity as Deputy Treasurer of the City of Fredericksburg; John C. Cook; Alexander Francuzen-ko; Cook, Craig & Francuzenko, PLLC, Defendants-Appellees, 484 F. App'x 835

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chase Carmen Hunter appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). Hunter’s complaint requested that the district court issue an injunction barring the Defendants from domesticating a Florida state court judgment in Virginia state court, a declaratory judgment finding the Florida state case void, and compensatory and punitive damages. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

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. While dismissals without prejudice generally are interlocutory and not appealable, Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir.1993), a dismissal without prejudice may be final if no amendment to the complaint can cure the defect in the plaintiff's case. Id. at 1066-67; see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 685 (4th Cir.2004).

We conclude that no amendment to Hunter's complaint could save her action; therefore, the district court's dismissal without prejudice is a final, appealable order.