Peter Vinal v. SunTrust Mortgage Incorporate

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00159-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999444710].. [14-1233]

Appeal: 14-1233

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1233

PETER S. VINAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; JOSEPH C. IRVING;
KATHY B. BAGBY; SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES LLC; JOHN DOES, to be
named later,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:13-cv-00159-D)

Submitted:

September 25, 2014

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

September 29, 2014

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James W. Lea, III, THE LEA/SCHULTZ LAW FIRM, P.C., Wilmington,
North Carolina, for Appellant.
Camden R. Webb, Elizabeth C.

Appeal: 14-1233

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Stone, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1233

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Peter S. Vinal seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

granting

Defendant

SunTrust

Mortgage

Inc.’s

motion

to

dismiss Vinal’s complaint for failure to state a claim under
Fed.

R.

Civ.

defendant.

P.

12(b)(6),

and

dismissing

SunTrust

as

a

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 Vinal seeks to appeal is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as
the claims against Defendant Safeguard Properties, LLC, remain
pending

in

the

district

appeal as interlocutory.

court.

Accordingly,

we

dismiss

the

See Dickens v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,

677 F.3d 228, 229–30 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that this court is
required to inquire into its jurisdiction sua sponte).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3