Taccino v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 6, 2011
• Docket: 10-2346
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2346

WILLIAM A. TACCINO; MARLENE M. TACCINO,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP; LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; LARRY D. RICHMAN, CEO; KENNETH J. MACFADYEN, a/k/a Kenneth J. MacFayden; MIRIAM S. FUCHS, a/k/a Marion Fuchs,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:09-cv-02994-RDB)

Submitted: May 24, 2011 Decided: June 6, 2011

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William A. Taccino, Marlene M. Taccino, Appellants Pro Se. Daniel J. Tobin, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Bethesda, Maryland; Michael Thomas Cantrell, FRIEDMAN & MACFADYEN, PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

William A. Taccino and Marlene M. Taccino seek to

appeal the district court’s order granting motions to dismiss

filed by Defendants LaSalle Bank National Association, Larry D.

Richman and Kenneth J. MacFadyen. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006),

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order the

Taccinos’ seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as it disposes of

fewer than all of the parties involved in this lawsuit.

Accordingly, because this matter remains pending against

Defendants Litton Loan Servicing, LP, and Miriam S. Fuchs, 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 the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED