Case Name: Sundari K. PRASAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Unknown Agent; DEA, Unknown Agent; DEA, Unknown Agent; FBI Richmond, Unknown Agent; FBI Headquarters, Unknown Agent; State of Virginia, Unknown Agent; Roderick Young, U.S. Eastern District Court-Richmond Division; M. H. Lauck, U.S. Eastern District Court-Richmond Division, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-02
Citations: 710 F. App'x 180
Docket Number: No. 17-7460
Parties: Sundari K. PRASAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Unknown Agent; DEA, Unknown Agent; DEA, Unknown Agent; FBI Richmond, Unknown Agent; FBI Headquarters, Unknown Agent; State of Virginia, Unknown Agent; Roderick Young, U.S. Eastern District Court—Richmond Division; M. H. Lauck, U.S. Eastern District Court—Richmond Division, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 180–180

Head Matter:
Sundari K. PRASAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Unknown Agent; DEA, Unknown Agent; DEA, Unknown Agent; FBI Richmond, Unknown Agent; FBI Headquarters, Unknown Agent; State of Virginia, Unknown Agent; Roderick Young, U.S. Eastern District Court—Richmond Division; M. H. Lauck, U.S. Eastern District Court—Richmond Division, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-7460
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 30, 2018
Decided: February 2, 2018
Sundari K. Prasad, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sundari K. Prasad seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to comply with the court's prior order to particularize her complaint. 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 particularizing the complaint as directed, we conclude that the order Prasad seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 the appeal 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 this matter to the district court, though, because the court previously afforded Prasad the chance to particularize her complaint, and she failed to do so. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30.