Ronald D. Chandler appeals the district court’s 1 order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil rights action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Chandler’s lengthy complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. See Mangan v. Weinberger, 848 F.2d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 1988) (Rule 8 standard of review), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1013, 109 S.Ct. 802, 102 L.Ed.2d 793 (1989); Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 10 standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice as to retaliation and deliberate-indifference claims based on defendants’ alleged failure to provide adequate mental health care, see Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344, 1346 (8th Cir. 1995) (deliberate indifference may include intentionally delaying or denying access to medical or mental health care, or intentionally interfering with treatment or medication that has been prescribed).