Steven R. Wolford, Petitioner Appellant, v. William Duncil, Warden, Respondent Appellee, 32 F.3d 563 (4th Cir. 1994)

PER CURIAM

Steven R. Wolford appeals from a district court order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

Dismissals without prejudice are normally interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993). Such is the case here. The district court properly dismissed Wolford's petition because it appeared to contain exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519 (1982). Wolford may either exhaust all the claims in the petition and then refile his petition, or he may amend his petition by deleting any unexhausted claims and resubmitting the amended petition to the district court.^*  Id. Thus, while the district court order here might be read to allow resubmission only after exhaustion, it appears that the order merely did not specifically enumerate all of Wolford's options. Because the petition may be saved by amendment, the district court order is not final under Domino Sugar.

We deny a certificate of probable cause the appeal and dismiss the appeal. 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