William Taccino v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. 10-2346 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2346 WILLIAM A. TACCINO; MARLENE M. TACCINO, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP;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 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 6, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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., Taccinos 337 seek U.S. to 541, appeal 545-46 is (1949). neither a The final order order nor the an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as it disposes of fewer than all Accordingly, of the because parties this matter involved in remains this lawsuit. pending against Defendants Litton Loan Servicing, LP, and Miriam S. Fuchs, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before We dispense with contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.