*1 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Wright, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). 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 (1949). Here, the district court concluded that Wright failed to state a claim, in part, because he had not alleged facts to support his conclusory assertion that the alleged denial of access to the courts impeded litigation in certain prior proceedings. Because this deficiency may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Wright 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 this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Wright to file another amended complaint. 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
2