The parties dispute whether the claims against Officer Early, contained in Counts 1, 4, and 5 of the amended complaint, remain pending in the district court. In those Counts, Lucero challenged Officer Early’s enforcement of Baltimore’s policy restricting leafletting in certain areas, including a claim that Officer Early selectively enforced the policy based on the viewpoint of the leafletters. We find that the district court’s order is ambiguous regarding its finality. Although the court stated, "This action is dismissed,” it did not specifically address the claims against Officer Early in its opinion and the motion it granted only sought dismissal of the claims against the municipal Defendants. We conclude that the court’s ambiguous order is insufficient to confer jurisdiction to this court. See Reinholdson v. Minnesota, 346 F.3d 847, 849 (8th Cir. 2003) ("To be final, an order or judgment must reflect some clear and unequivocal manifestation by the trial court of its belief that the decision made, so far as the court is concerned, is the end of the case.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)).