Sally Heyns v. Select Portfolio Servicing, No. 19-1075 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1075 SALLY HEYNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK; DOES 1 TO 50, Inclusive, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01429-TSE-MSN) Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sally Heyns, Appellant Pro Se. John Alexander Nader, MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sally Heyns filed a civil complaint alleging that Defendants engaged in fraud, negligence, and misrepresentation with respect to a mortgage note. Heyns seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2012). 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). In its dismissal order, the district court advised that Heyns “may file a new complaint to the extent that she can articulate viable claim(s) and sufficient facts to support those claim(s).” Because Heyns could potentially amend her complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Heyns to file an amended complaint. 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 AND REMANDED 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.