Joseph Vaughan, II v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Joseph Vaughan, II v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1665

JOSEPH F. VAUGHAN, II, f/k/a Joseph Vaughan; KATHERINE M. VAUGHAN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., f/k/a Wells Fargo; PREMIUM CAPITAL FUNDING; SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C.; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO., f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Successor in Interest to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA as Trustee for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-3, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-3; DOES 1-10,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

AMERICAN FEDERAL; FORD CONSUMER FINANCING; TRAVELERS MORTGAGE; LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY; WASHINGTON MUTUAL,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:15-cv-00038-NKM)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph F. Vaughan, II, Katherine M. Vaughan, Appellants Pro Se. Terry Catherine Frank, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A..

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Joseph F. Vaughan, II, and Katherine M. Vaughan seek to appeal

the district court’s order granting Wells Fargo’s motion to

dismiss. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2012), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,

337 U.S. 541, 545-46

(1949).

The order the Vaughans seek to appeal is neither a final order nor

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished