punishment; (4) he has been “excessively fined for charges [he] plead not guilty to[ ]”; (5) doctors have “deliberately misdiagnosed” him; (6) he has been “sexually abused”; and (7) he “was a sexual abuse victim ... at the prison in April of 2010.” Id. at 1-2. As a threshold matter, the district court did not specify whether its dismissal was with or without prejudice. We presume the dismissal was with prejudice since a dismissal for failure to state a claim and a dismissal for failure to prosecute are decisions on the merits. Osborn v. Shillinger, 861 F.2d 612, 617 (10th Cir.1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). As such, the district court should have considered the Ehrenhaus factors with respect to its Rule 41(b) dismissal. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 427 F.3d 727, 738 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The district court in this case, however,
holding district courts dismissal of an action with prejudice without addressing ehrenhaus factors on the record amounts to an abuse of discretion internal quotation marks omitted holding that an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is a final appealable order only if no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the  case internal quotation marks omitted recognizing district courts broad discretion to impose prison term up to the statutory maximum for violations of supervised release internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that we review a trial courts jury instruc tions for abuse of discretion and that a district court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that a district courts dismissal of an independent action under rule 60b is reviewed for abuse of discretion