do not apply the doctrine of res judicata when the district court, without any specific qualifications or limiting instruction, utilizes its discretion to dismiss a complaint “without prejudice.” See Sunwest Bank v. Nelson, 1998-NMSC-012 ¶ 7, 125 N.M. 170, 958 P.2d 740 (addressing a dismissal without prejudice in the context of finality so as to permit an immediate appeal but also acknowledging that separate proceedings on the merits are appropriate and overcome the doctrine of res judicata when claims are dismissed without prejudice); Marquez v. Juan Tafoya Land Corp., 1981-NMSC-080, ¶ 9, 96 N.M. 503, 632 P.2d 738 (noting that “a dismissal without prejudice contemplates the right to further proceedings”); Watkins v. Local Sch. Bd., 1975-NMSC-048, ¶¶ 8, 12, 88 N.M. 276, 540 P.2d 206 (<HOLDING>); Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v. Baca,
holding that a dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case holding that where the district court dismisses a complaint and provides a stated period within which the plaintiff may amend the order of dismissal  becomes final upon the expiration of the time allowed for amendment the time for appeal is measured from the date on which the district court order of dismissal becomes final recognizing that a dismissal without prejudice along with a limited opportunity to amend the complaint within twenty days only became final and binding when no amended pleadings were filed within the time period allowed holding that dismissal of a complaint for insufficient jurisdictional allegations should be without prejudice to amend holding that dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim should generally be without prejudice but if the plaintiff has been given an opportunity amend his complaint and fails to do so the dismissal may be with prejudice