Andre Raymond Vines seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The district court’s *607 order indicated that the habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice due to Vines’ failure to show cause why his claims were not procedurally defaulted or time-barred. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). This order is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order, as Vines can cure the relevant defect by filing an amended petition addressing these matters. See 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.