Graves v. Wellman Inc

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -