in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Y.B., a minor child, by and through his mother, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to transfer to another high school and dismissing without prejudice his civil action. Y.B. also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend the caption of his case. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice generally is not an appealable order, see Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.2005), unless the action cannot be saved by merely amending the complaint. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). With regard to the district court’s denial of
holding where an appellate court affirms trial courts grant of summary judgment on a particular ground the appellate court need not discuss the remaining grounds holding appellate court may evaluate particular grounds for dismissal to determine whether plaintiff could save action by merely amending complaint holding that dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim should generally be without prejudice but if the plaintiff has been given an opportunity amend his complaint and fails to do so the dismissal may be with prejudice holding that in considering dismissal of an appeal the court should exercise discretion to determine whether dismissal is appropriate in the circumstances presented by the case holding that the analysis to determine whether a claimant has established a reasonable basis to plead a claim for punitive damages is similar to the analysis applied to determine whether the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action