Sundari K. PRASAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Viviene B. CHEEK; Vivian B. Cheek; Carolyn D. Nelson; Reginald Cheek; Toya Cheek; Clenford Cheek, Uncle; Khem Cheek; Sarah Cheek, Cousin; Chris Cheek, Cousin; Cathina Cheek, Cousin; Clenford Cheek, Jr., Cousin; Jonathan D. Headlee; Fern Cheek; Reverend Ricardo Brown, Jr.; Reginald Cheek, Jr.; Gail Nelson, Lawyer; Booker Walker-Washington, Musician; Sally Nelson, Nurse; Charlotte Nelson; Z-Baby Nelson; Frieda Nelson, Nurse; Brent Nelson, Lawyer; Beverly Nelson, Lawyer; Brandy Nelson, Doctor; Lisa Nelson; Cynthia Nelson, Journalist; Donna Nelson; Al Nelson, II; Clarence Nelson, Jr.; Pouncee Nelson; Adrienne Nelson; Horace Nelson Steward; The Estate & Inheritance of Pauly O. Pauls & Family; The Estate & Inheritance of Jim Sovell & Family; The Estate & Inheritance of Ashton Hendrix; The Estate & Inheritance of Tracy Bosley & Family; The Estate & Inheritance of Kelly/karen & Family; The Estate & Inheritance of Larry Flynt & Family; The Estate & Inheritance of Ocean E. River Clark & Family; The Estate & Inheritance of Jonathan D. Headlee & Family; The Estate & Inheritance of David Arnold Carpenter & Family; The Estate & Inheritance of Monica Kristy and Vick E. Stones; The Estate & Inheritance of Katherine Flynt, Defendants-Appellees; Sundari Karma Prasad, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arista Records; Virgin, Defendants-Appellees, 707 F. App'x 204

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Sundari Karma Prasad seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice two of Prasad’s pending 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) actions for failure to adequately comply with the magistrate judge’s orders to further particularize her complaints. This court may exercise jurisdiction only, over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of amended complaints, we conclude that the orders Prasad seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory or collateral orders. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

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 We do not remand either of these matters to the district court, though, because the court previously afforded Prasad the chance to amend her complaints, and she failed to do so. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30.