Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01665/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01665-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1665

JOSEPH F. VAUGHAN, II, f/k/a Joseph Vaughan; KATHERINE M. 

VAUGHAN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., f/k/a Wells Fargo; PREMIUM CAPITAL 

FUNDING; SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C.; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

TRUST CO., f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Successor in Interest 

to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA as Trustee for Bear Stearns Asset 

Backed Securities Trust 2006-3, Asset Backed Certificates, 

Series 2006-3; DOES 1-10,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

AMERICAN FEDERAL; FORD CONSUMER FINANCING; TRAVELERS MORTGAGE; 

LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY; WASHINGTON MUTUAL,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior 

District Judge. (6:15-cv-00038-NKM)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-1665 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Joseph F. Vaughan, II, Katherine M. Vaughan, Appellants Pro Se. 

Terry Catherine Frank, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A..

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1665 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Joseph F. Vaughan, II, and Katherine M. Vaughan seek to appeal

the district court’s order granting Wells Fargo’s motion to 

dismiss. 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 the Vaughans seek to appeal is neither a final order nor 

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, 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

Appeal: 16-1665 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 3 of 3