Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01801/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01801-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allied Investment Partners PJSC

American Heartland Port, Incorporated
Appellant
American Port Holdings, Incorporated
Appellee
ArcelorMittal Weirton LLC
Appellee
Arcelormittal Weirton Incorporated

Stanley Ballas

James C. Breckinridge
Appellee
Channel Point Partners

Patrick Nicholas DiCarlo
Appellee
Daniel L. Dickerson
Appellee
Andrew S. Fellows
Appellee
Jo Lynn Kraina
Appellant
James Martodam

Shelley Reed
Appellant
Misty Shannon
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1801

AMERICAN HEARTLAND PORT, INCORPORATED; JO LYNN KRAINA; 

SHELLEY REED; MISTY SHANNON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

AMERICAN PORT HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, a Delaware 

corporation; PATRICK NICHOLAS DICARLO, an individual; 

ARCELORMITTAL WEIRTON LLC, a corporation; DANIEL L. 

DICKERSON, individually; ANDREW S. FELLOWS, individually; 

JAMES C. BRECKINRIDGE, individually,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

ALLIED INVESTMENT PARTNERS PJSC, a foreign corporation; 

ARCELORMITTAL WEIRTON INCORPORATED; STANLEY BALLAS, 

individually; CHANNEL POINT PARTNERS, a corporation; JAMES 

MARTODAM, individually,

Defendants.

No. 14-1809

AMERICAN HEARTLAND PORT, INCORPORATED; JO LYNN KRAINA; 

SHELLEY REED; MISTY SHANNON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

AMERICAN PORT HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, a Delaware 

corporation; PATRICK NICHOLAS DICARLO, an individual; 

Appeal: 14-1801 Doc: 81 Filed: 12/15/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

ARCELORMITTAL WEIRTON LLC, a corporation; DANIEL L. 

DICKERSON, individually; ANDREW S. FELLOWS, individually; 

JAMES C. BRECKINRIDGE, individually,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

ALLIED INVESTMENT PARTNERS PJSC, a foreign corporation; 

ARCELORMITTAL WEIRTON INCORPORATED; JAMES MARTODAM, 

individually; STANLEY BALLAS, individually; CHANNEL POINT 

PARTNERS, a corporation,

Defendants.

No. 14-2249

AMERICAN HEARTLAND PORT, INCORPORATED; JO LYNN KRAINA; 

SHELLEY REED; MISTY SHANNON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

AMERICAN PORT HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, a Delaware 

corporation; PATRICK NICHOLAS DICARLO, an individual; 

ARCELORMITTAL WEIRTON LLC, a corporation; DANIEL L. 

DICKERSON, individually; ANDREW S. FELLOWS, individually; 

JAMES C. BRECKINRIDGE, individually,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

ALLIED INVESTMENT PARTNERS PJSC, a foreign corporation; 

ARCELORMITTAL WEIRTON INCORPORATED; JAMES MARTODAM, 

individually; STANLEY BALLAS, individually; CHANNEL POINT 

PARTNERS, a corporation,

Defendants.

Appeal: 14-1801 Doc: 81 Filed: 12/15/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00050-FPS-JES)

Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: December 15, 2015

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Hampton Tinney, Jr., TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, 

West Virginia, for Appellants. Wendy G. Adkins, Stephen Michael 

LaCagnin, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Dennis 

Joseph Powers, Kenneth L. Schmetterer, DLA PIPER US LLP, 

Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees. Patrick Nicholas DiCarlo, 

Newport Beach, California, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1801 Doc: 81 Filed: 12/15/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

PER CURIAM:

American Heartland Port, Inc., Jo Lynn Kraina, Shelley 

Reed, and Misty Shannon (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing their claims against Patrick 

Nicholas DiCarlo (No. 14-1801) and the order granting summary 

judgment to ArcelorMittal Weirton, LLC (No. 14-1809).* We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm. Am. Heartland Port, Inc. v. Am. Port Holdings, Inc., 

No. 5:11-cv-00050-FPS-JES (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 21, 2014; July 17, 

2014 & Oct. 8, 2014).

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

 * Plaintiffs also noted an appeal of the district court’s 

order denying their motion for new trial, entered on October 8, 

2014 (No. 14-2249). Because Plaintiffs failed to brief this 

issue in their informal opening brief, they have waived any 

challenge to that order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 

177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to 

issues preserved in that brief.”). To the extent Plaintiffs’ 

argument in their brief challenging the district court’s denial 

of their motion for a protective order relates to their motion 

for new trial, we find no reversible error.

Appeal: 14-1801 Doc: 81 Filed: 12/15/2015 Pg: 4 of 4