
    Sundari K. PRASAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shakita MASSEY-TAYLOR; Deborah S. Roe; Elizabeth Wickline; Judge Nolan, Defendants-Appellees. Sundari K. Prasad, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hamilton L. Hendrix; Gloria D. Lewis-Sorrell; James Sorrell; Sharon Lewis-Pauls; Pauley O. Pauls; Monica K. Vick; S. Jones, Vick’s Mother; Ashton Hendrix; T. Bosley; Daniels, Tuck & Ritter, T. Williams; Peter Decker; Judson Collier; Ned Miklua; Robert Saunders; Linda Lambert; VA State Bar, Jane Fletcher; A. Michele Cavanaugh; Thomas A. Burcher; Robert Dawson; Stephen Bloomquest; W. Warner; David Lee; Gail Nelson-Walker; Tara A. McGee; Richard Locke; Rick Friedman; Emily Munn; Ericka M. Battle; Ware & Morrison, c/o Nancy Morrison, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-7350, No. 17-7483
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 22, 2018
    Decided: February 27, 2018
    
      Sundari K. Prasad, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Sundari K. 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 submit second particularized 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 supplementing the complaints as directed, we conclude that the orders Prasad seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable 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 and repeatedly afforded Prasad the chance to further particularize and amend her complaints, and she failed to do so. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30.
     