Robert Sayman v. Lehman Brothers Bank, F.S.B. , 589 F. App'x 171 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1575
ROBERT W. SAYMAN; MARY B. SAYMAN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
LEHMAN BROTHERS, FSB; VOLKSWAGEN BANK USA; NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE, LLC; ROGERS TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00288-RJC-DSC)
Submitted: November 17, 2014 Decided: January 8, 2015
Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert W. Sayman, Mary B. Sayman, Appellants Pro Se. Dennis
Kyle Deak, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Timothy Patrick Lendino, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Kim M. Watterson, REED SMITH, LLP,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert W. Sayman and Mary B. Sayman seek to appeal the
district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendations to dismiss their claims against Lehman Brothers,
FSB; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; and Volkswagen Bank USA as barred
by the applicable statutes of limitations. 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 orders the Saymans seek to appeal are neither
final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
The Saymans named a fourth Defendant in their amended complaint—
the law firm, Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC. Although it is not
clear from the record whether the firm was properly served with
the amended complaint, we err on the side of caution and
conclude that Rogers Townsend is a party to the litigation
within the meaning of Rule 54(b). Cf. Insinga v. LaBella, 817
F.2d 1469, 1470 (11th Cir. 1987) (holding that “where an action
is dismissed as to all defendants who have been served and only
unserved defendants remain, the district court’s judgment may be
considered a final appealable order”). Because the Saymans’
claims against Rogers Townsend remain pending in the district
2
court, the Saymans’ appeal is interlocutory and 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3