Case ID: f-appx_308/html/0702-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James H. HOWELL; Robert S. Marshall; Glenroy Schissler; Richard A. Young, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Jack Rushing, Plaintiff, v. TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 355; Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 639; Teamsters 639 Employers Pension Trust Fund; Teamsters 355 Employers Pension Trust Fund; Joint Board of Trustees of Teamsters 639 Employers Pension Trust Fund; Joint Board of Trustees of Teamsters 355 Employers Pension Trust Fund; Philip Feaster, Defendants-Appellees, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Teamsters Joint Council No. 55; United Parcel Service, Incorporated, Defendants.
    No. 08-1548.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 10, 2008.
    Decided: Jan. 23, 2009.
    James H. Howell; Robert S. Marshall; Glenroy Schissler; Richard A. Young, Appellants Pro Se. Helene Victoria Hedían, Paul Douglas Starr, Kimberly Lynn Bradley, Abato, Rubenstein & Abato, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Mark James Murphy, Mooney, Green, Baker & Saindon, PC, Washington, D.C.; Donald Lawrence Hav-ermann, Simon Joseph Torres, Morgan, Lewis & Boekius, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jason Lee Levine, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Ap-pellees.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting Appel-lees’ motions to dismiss, granting the remaining Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and denying relief on Appellants’ civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See Howell v. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 355, No. 1:07-cv-00989-WDQ (D. Md. Apr. 9, 2008; Jan. 8, 2008). 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.