ORDER AND JUDGMENT’ *

Plaintiff-Appellant Lester Washington, proceeding pro se, filed this action against twenty-six defendants who all have various connections to Colorado State University. The district court dismissed Washington’s complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and Washington timely appealed. Because the district court dismissed Washington’s complaint without prejudice, we lack jurisdiction and, thus, we DISMISS this appeal.

DISCUSSION

We have an independent duty to examine our own jurisdiction. Thomas v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 631 F.3d 1153, 1158 (10th Cir. 2011). Thus, we must first decide whether the district court’s dismissal of Washington’s complaint without prejudice is a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because if it is not, then we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The courts of appeals are granted jurisdiction by statute over “appeals from ... final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A dismissal without prejudice is usually not a final decision. Facteau v. Sullivan, 843 F.2d 1318, 1319 (10th Cir. 1988). Though where the dismissal finally disposes of the case so that it is not subject to further proceedings in federal court, the dismissal is final and appealable. Id. “The critical determination [as to whether an order is final] is whether plaintiff has been effectively excluded from federal court under the present circumstances.” Id. at 1319. In this circuit, we have generally distinguished between dismissal of a complaint and dismissal of an action: “A dismissal of the complaint is ordinarily a non-final, nonappealable order (since amendment would generally be available), while a dismissal of the entire action is ordinarily final.” Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 339 (10th Cir. 1994) (internal citations omitted). “Despite our use of this complaint/action terminology, we have long recognized that the requirement of finality imposed by section 1291 is to be given a practical rather than a technical construction.” Moya v. Schollenbarger, 465 F.3d 444, 449 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In evaluating finality, therefore, we look to the substance and objective intent of the district court’s order, not just its terminology.” Id.

*701 In this case the district court dismissed Washington’s complaint using the following language: “[T]he complaint (Doc. # 3), the amended complaint (Doc. # 18), and the action are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (ApltApp., vol. II at 354.) While the district court spoke of both dismissing the complaint and the action, the fact that the district court’s order is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 convinces us that the intent was simply to dismiss the complaint to allow Washington an opportunity to save his suit by refiling a complaint based on the same claims stated with greater particularity. Thus, we conclude that the district court’s order dismissing Washington’s complaint without prejudice is not a final, appealable judgment, and we dismiss this appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS this appeal and DENY Washington’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.