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

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:15-cv-00038-NKM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999948147]. Mailed to: appellants. [16-1665]

Appeal: 16-1665

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-1665

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Appeal: 16-1665

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Joseph F. Vaughan, II, and Katherine M. Vaughan seek to appeal
the

district

dismiss.

court’s

order

granting

Wells

Fargo’s

motion

to

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.
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

Accordingly, we
We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3