Melvin Richard Robinson, III, seeks to appeal the district courts order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). “[D]ismissals without prejudice generally are not appealable ‘unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case.’ ” Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Loc. Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993)), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1376, 209 L.Ed.2d 122 (2021). Here, the district court dismissed the complaint but did not direct the clerks office to close the case. See id. at 611-12, 614. Furthermore, the district court did not grant Robinson an opportunity to amend his complaint before dismissing, and Robinsons appeal does not appear to indicate an intent to stand on his complaint. See id. at 612. Thus, we conclude that the district courts order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We direct on remand that the district court, in its discretion, either afford Robinson an opportunity to amend or dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final, appealable judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED
PER CURIAM:
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.