Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Thomas Ritter v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A., 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal by Thomas and Sally Ritter of a district court order dismissing some but not all defendants in their amended complaint. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order that disposed of all claims against all parties, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-08-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-1183

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal by Thomas and Sally Ritter of a district court order dismissing some but not all defendants in their amended complaint. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order that disposed of all claims against all parties, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    Thomas Ritter v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A., 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal by Thomas and Sally Ritter of a district court order dismissing some but not all defendants in their amended complaint. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order that disposed of all claims against all parties, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. As such, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-1183

    THOMAS RITTER; SALLY RITTER,


    Plaintiffs Appellants,
    v.
    WASHINGTON
    LENDING,

    MUTUAL

    BANK,

    N.A.;

    MORGAN

    CHASE

    BANK

    HOME

    KENNY

    AND

    Defendants Appellees,
    and
    SECURITY FINANCIAL
    ASSOCIATES,

    CORPORATION;

    MICHAEL

    G.

    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:10-cv-00438-GBL-TCB)

    Submitted:

    July 21, 2011

    Decided:

    August 1, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas Ritter; Sally Ritter, Appellants Pro Se.


    Witherspoon,
    MILES
    &
    STOCKBRIDGE,
    McLean,
    Appellees.

    Diana Margeaux
    Virginia,
    for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas and Sally Ritter seek to appeal the district
    courts

    order

    dismissing,

    with

    prejudice,

    complaint against some but not all defendants.

    their

    amended

    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 (1949).

    The order that

    the Ritters seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an


    appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    Accordingly, we
    We dispense with
    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like