Anne-Marie Mendible v. Special Proceeding Department of the Wake County, No. 22-1259 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1259 ANNE-MARIE MENDIBLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SPECIAL PROCEEDING DEPARTMENT OF THE WAKE COUNTY COURT; US BANK TRUST, N.A., As Trustee of LSF9 Master Participation Trust; TRUSTEE SERVICES OF CAROLINA, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-cv-00087-M) Submitted: June 23, 2022 Decided: June 27, 2022 Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anne-Marie Mendible, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew N. Bernardini, Gilbert Charles Dickey, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Alan Marc Presel, BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anne-Marie Mendible appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss Mendible’s amended complaint. All Defendants but one have moved to dismiss the appeal in part as untimely. We deny the motion to dismiss and affirm the judgment. Defendants move to dismiss that portion of Mendible’s appeal challenging the magistrate judge’s order granting their motion to stay discovery, arguing that Mendible did not note an appeal within 30 days of the entry of that order. However, interlocutory orders—such as the order staying discovery—generally merge into the district court’s final judgment and are therefore reviewable on appeal from that judgment. See, e.g., Calderon v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 809 F.3d 111, 120 (4th Cir. 2015). We see no reason to deviate from that rule here. Accordingly, because Mendible timely appealed from the district court’s final judgment, we have jurisdiction to review the judgment and the orders that preceded it. As to the merits of the appeal, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm the district court’s judgment. Mendible v. Special Proc. Dep’t of the Wake Cnty. Ct., No. 5:21cv-00087-M (E.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts Mendible has forfeited appellate review of much of the district court’s order dismissing her amended complaint by failing to challenge in her informal brief many of the bases for the court’s disposition of her claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting our review to issues raised in informal brief); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (same). * 2 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
