Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-29
Citations: 583 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 14-1233
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 269–269

Head Matter:
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.
No. 14-1233.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 25, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 29, 2014.
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.
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.P. 12(b)(6), and dismissing SunTrust as a defendant. 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 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 court. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.