appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss, without prejudice, his motion for a sentence reduction as an improperly filed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice to petitioner filing a corrected motion on the proper § 2255 forms. See United States v. Billingsley, No. CA-04-445 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 2004). Instead of heeding the court’s advice, Billingsley appealed. Because the dismissal order is without prejudice, and Billingsley may file an amended complaint in the district court by submitting it on the proper forms, we conclude that this order is interlocutory and thus, not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (inter nal quotation marks and citation
holding that an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is a final appealable order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the  case internal quotation marks omitted holding that a plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of his claims with prejudice constituted a final order that was appealable holding that a dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case holding borough could not appeal dismissal of complaint without prejudice because  dismissal without prejudice is comparable to a nonsuit under the former practice of lavf  holding that dismissal without prejudice is final appealable order where no amendment to complaint could cure deficiencies identified by district court