Thomas James Erickson appeals from the district court’s 1 dismissal of his pro se civil complaint in which he alleged that the United States Postal Service, through four of its Minnesota employees, wrongfully refused to deliver his mail or hold it for pickup. Upon de novo review, see Goodin v. U.S. Postal Inspection Serv., 444 F.3d 998, 1000 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 930, 166 L.Ed.2d 702 (2007), we conclude that the district court *758 properly dismissed Erickson’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the Postal Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over Erickson’s claims regarding postal rates and services. See 39 U.S.C. § 3662; LeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799-800 (8th Cir. 2006).

We modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, see Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Assocs., 182 F.3d 121, 123-24 (2d Cir. 1999) (Article III deprives federal courts of power to dismiss case with prejudice where subject matter jurisdiction does not exist), and affirm the judgment as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.