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


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1665 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1665 JOSEPH F. VAUGHAN, II, f/k/a Joseph Vaughan; KATHERINE M. VAUGHAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-1665 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Joseph F. Vaughan, II, and Katherine M. Vaughan seek to appeal the district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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?