Case Name: Robert W. SAYMAN; Mary B. Sayman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEHMAN BROTHERS, FSB; Volkswagen Bank USA; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-08
Citations: 589 F. App'x 171
Docket Number: No. 14-1575
Parties: Robert W. SAYMAN; Mary B. Sayman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEHMAN BROTHERS, FSB; Volkswagen Bank USA; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 171–171

Head Matter:
Robert W. SAYMAN; Mary B. Sayman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEHMAN BROTHERS, FSB; Volkswagen Bank USA; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-1575.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 8, 2015.
' Robert W. Sayman, Mary B. Sayman, Appellants Pro Se. Dennis Kyle Deak, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Timothy Patrick Lendino, Smith Moore Leatherwood, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Kim M. Watterson, Reed Smith, LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert W. Sayman and Mary B. Say-man seek to appeal the district court's orders adopting the magistrate judge's recommendations to dismiss their claims against Lehman Brothers, FSB; Nations-tar Mortgage, LLC; and Volkswagen Bank USA as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).
The orders the Saymans seek to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. The Say-mans named a fourth Defendant in their amended complaint — the law firm, Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC. Although it is not clear from the record whether the firm was properly served with the amended complaint, we err on the side of caution and conclude that Rogers Townsend is a party to the litigation within the meaning of Rule 54(b). Cf. Insinga v. LaBella, 817 F.2d 1469, 1470 (11th Cir.1987) (holding that "where an action is dismissed as to all defendants who have been served and only unserved defendants remain, the district court's judgment may be considered a final appealable order"). Because the Saymans' claims against Rogers Townsend remain pending in the district court, the Saymans' appeal is interlocutory and 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.