Case Name: Thomas RITTER; Sally Ritter, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A.; Morgan Chase Bank Home Lending, Defendants-Appellees, and Security Financial Corporation; Michael G. Kenny and Associates, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-01
Citations: 441 F. App'x 143
Docket Number: No. 11-1183
Parties: Thomas RITTER; Sally Ritter, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A.; Morgan Chase Bank Home Lending, Defendants-Appellees, and Security Financial Corporation; Michael G. Kenny and Associates, Defendants.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 143–144

Head Matter:
Thomas RITTER; Sally Ritter, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A.; Morgan Chase Bank Home Lending, Defendants-Appellees, and Security Financial Corporation; Michael G. Kenny and Associates, Defendants.
No. 11-1183.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.
Thomas Ritter; Sally Ritter, Appellants Pro Se. Diana Margeaux Witherspoon, Miles & Stockbridge, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas and Sally Ritter seek to appeal the district court's order dismissing, with prejudice, their amended complaint against some but not all defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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 that the Ritters 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.