Diana Louise Houck v. Substitute Trustee Service

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cv-00066-DSC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999424149].. [13-2326]

Appeal: 13-2326

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/27/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2326

DIANA LOUISE HOUCK; STEVEN G. TATE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
LIFESTORE BANK; GRID FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
David S. Cayer,
Magistrate Judge. (5:13-cv-00066-DSC)

Submitted:

July 28, 2014

Before KEENAN
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 27, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

M. Shane Perry, COLLUM & PERRY, Mooresville, North Carolina, for
Appellants.
Jeffrey A. Bunda, HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 13-2326

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/27/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-2326

Doc: 32

Filed: 08/27/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Diana Louise Houck and Steven G. Tate seek to appeal
the district court’s order entered October 1, 2013, dismissing
all claims as to one of the defendants in the underlying civil
action.

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, 54546 (1949).

The order appellants seek to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

*

We note that, after the notice of appeal was filed, the
district court entered orders dismissing claims against the
remaining two defendants.
Under the doctrine of cumulative
finality, see Equip. Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Computer
Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir. 1992), it is possible to
cure the jurisdictional defect resulting from the appeal of a
non-final order if the district court enters final judgment
prior to this court’s consideration of the appeal.
However,
because at least some claims against defendant Lifestore Bank
are still pending in the district court, a final order has not
yet been entered.

3