With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a reasonable worker from whistleblowing. And while Defendants muster a couple of easily distinguishable cases to support their argument to the contrary, none of those mandates a holding that reassignments that increase commute time and costs and decrease pay are insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a retaliation claim. We hold that Smith has successfully pled retaliation under Section 3730(h). The district court thus erred when it granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim. V. In sum, we hold that the district court erred when it dismissed Counts I, II, and IV of Smith’s complaint with prejudice. In light of this holding, the district court’s award of costs to Defendants is also improper. Cf. Kollsman, a Div. of Sequa Corp. v. Cohen, 996 F.2d 702, 706 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54 (“Unless a fed eral statute,

A: 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
B: holding that the parties stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was a final judgment
C: holding that defendant was a prevailing party eligible to receive costs where there had been a dismissal with prejudice
D: holding that the district court had discretion where plaintiff sought to amend a count that had been dismissed with prejudice
C.