Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02304/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02304-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2304

CHRISTOPHER EUGENE BUCKNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; TEAMSTERS LOCAL 391,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:14-cv-00539-FL)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Eugene Buckner, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Ballantine 

Molony, ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Glenn G. 

Patton, ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; J. David James, 

SMITH, JAMES, ROWLETT & COHEN, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2304 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Eugene Buckner filed a civil action in state 

court against United Parcel Service, Inc., and Teamsters Local 

391, asserting various violations of North Carolina law. The 

district court determined that Buckner’s claims were preempted 

under the Labor Management Relations Act and that removal to 

federal court was therefore proper. Buckner now appeals the 

district court’s order accepting in part and denying in part the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation, denying Buckner’s motion to 

remand, dismissing some claims with prejudice as barred by res 

judicata and the statute of limitations, and dismissing his 

remaining claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Buckner v. United Parcel 

Serv., Inc., No. 5:14-cv-00539-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2015). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-2304 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 2