Per Curiam
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1:22-cv-00053-UNA
BEFORE: Rogers and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge
JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed January 25, 2022, be affirmed. Appellant contends that the district court should have granted him leave to amend his complaint prior to dismissal, but the statute contains no such requirement, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the district court's sua sponte dismissal was without prejudice, see Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 671 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (observing that a dismissal without prejudice typically does not prevent a plaintiff from correcting the complaint's defects and filing a new lawsuit). Moreover, appellant has not suggested any possible amendments to his complaint that could entitle him to relief, nor has he identified any barrier to him filing an amended complaint in the future. Finally, appellant has forfeited any argument regarding the merits of the district court's disposition of his APA claims. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("Ordinarily, arguments that parties do not make on appeal are deemed to have been waived.").
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.