Graves v. Wellman Inc

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2214
WILLIE GRAVES, JR.; JOHNNY GRAVES; HENRY
FELDER; DONALD O. WILLIAMS; L. J. BARTELL;
PAUL E. WILLIAMS; EARLY WALKER, JR.; WILLIE
PETERSON; ARTHUR HANNA; GILBERT RICHARDSON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
WELLMAN, INCORPORATED; THOMAS DUFF,
individually and in his official capacity as
CEO; DONALD CARTWRIGHT, individually and as
Vice President of Fiber Strategy and New
Product Development and the Engineering Resin
Division; AUDIE DUPUIS, individually and in
his official capacity; JERRY CHASTAIN,
individually and in his official capacity; J.
DALVIN AVANT, individually and in his official
capacity; JEFF SEALS, individually and in his
official capacity; JOHN HOBSON, individually
and in his official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-03-2098-4-TLW)
Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 21, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Graves, Jr., Johnny Graves, Henry Felder, Donald O.
Williams, L.J. Bartell, Paul E. Williams, Early Walker, Jr., Willie
Peterson, Arthur Hanna, Gilbert Richardson, Appellants Pro Se.
George Daniel Ellzey, Jonathan Pharr Pearson, FISHER & PHILLIPS,
LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs/Appellants appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting
summary judgment for Defendants/Appellees in this Labor Management
Relations Act action. On appeal, Appellants allege that the
magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate their action.
As noted by the district court, however, this claims fails because
the magistrate judge had jurisdiction to make a recommendation to
the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Graves v. Wellman, Inc., No. CA-03-2098-4-TLW (D.S.C.
Sept. 27, 2005). 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.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -