
    Katherine B. ROBINSON; Dana B. Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHESAPEAKE BANK OF MARYLAND; Proctor Financial, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-1217
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 20, 2017
    Decided: June 22, 2017
    
      Katherine B. Robinson, Dana B. Williams, Appellants Pro Se.
    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Katherine B. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint against Defendants after Robinson failed to comply with the district court’s prior order directing Robinson to supplement 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, the order Robinson 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 because the court previously afforded Robinson the chance to supplement her complaint. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30.
     