Peter Vinal v. SunTrust Mortgage Incorporate, No. 14-1233 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1233 PETER S. VINAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; JOSEPH C. IRVING; KATHY B. BAGBY; SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES LLC; JOHN DOES, to be named later, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (7:13-cv-00159-D) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, September 29, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James W. Lea, III, THE LEA/SCHULTZ LAW FIRM, P.C., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Camden R. Webb, Elizabeth C. Stone, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Peter S. Vinal seeks to appeal the district court s order granting Defendant SunTrust Mortgage Inc. s motion to dismiss Vinal s complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. defendant. P. 12(b)(6), and dismissing SunTrust as a 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 Vinal seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as the claims against Defendant Safeguard Properties, LLC, remain pending in the district appeal as interlocutory. court. Accordingly, we dismiss the See Dickens v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 677 F.3d 228, 229 30 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that this court is required to inquire into its jurisdiction sua sponte). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 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.