UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2457

RONALD BARKHORN, et al.; MICHAEL SCHULTZ; RICHARD DELAWDER; 

JOHN DELAWDER, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

and 

JOHN DELWADER; RICK DEWALDER; MIKE SHULTZ; TERRY NEBLITT;

JOHN ZIELINSKI; MARK HAGOHAN; JAMES RUFF; FRANCESCO SOZIO; 

JOE WILLIAMS; JOHN GRIFFIN; PAUL SINGER; BOB SMOOT; JOHN 

ZELINSKI; MARK HAGOPIAN; ROBERT SMOOT; JIM GRIFFIN, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PORTS AMERICA CHESAPEAKE, LLC, 

Defendant - Appellee, 

and 

STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE, 

Defendant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Susan K. Gauvey, Magistrate Judge. 

(1:10-cv-00750-SKG) 

Submitted: April 30, 2014 Decided: May 21, 2014

Before SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Ronald Barkhorn, Michael Schultz, Richard Delawder, John 

Delawder, Appellants Pro Se. Michael J. Collins, MICHAEL J. 

COLLINS, PC, Highland, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
3

PER CURIAM: 

Ronald Barkhorn, Michael Schultz, Richard Delawder, 

and John Delawder appeal the magistrate judge’s ruling* granting 

judgment in favor of Ports America Chesapeake, LLC (“Ports 

America”), after a bench trial in their civil action for 

discrimination and retaliation and the magistrate judge’s order 

denying their post-judgment motions. We affirm. 

We review a judgment following a bench trial under a 

mixed standard of review. Factual findings may be reversed only 

if clearly erroneous, while conclusions of law are examined de 

novo. Roanoke Cement Co. v. Falk Corp., 413 F.3d 431, 433 

(4th Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a district court’s factual finding in 

a bench trial is based upon assessments of witness credibility, 

such finding is deserving of the highest degree of appellate 

deference.” Evergreen Int’l, S.A. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 

531 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

Having reviewed the parties’ informal briefs and the 

record before us, we perceive no basis on which to overturn the 

magistrate judge’s judgment. We reject as without merit 

Appellants’ argument that the magistrate judge applied the wrong 

 * The parties in this case consented to the jurisdiction of 

the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2012). 
4

legal standard in assessing their prima facie case for 

discrimination and defer to the magistrate judge’s 

findings - premised on credibility determinations - that Ports 

America’s stated reasons for its employment decisions were not a 

pretext for discrimination. We further reject as without merit 

Appellants’ contentions that the case should be remanded for 

additional fact-finding by the magistrate judge and that their 

earnings reflect discrimination and retaliation. 

With respect to the magistrate judge’s order denying 

Appellants’ post-judgment motions, we have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

magistrate judge’s judgment and further affirm the denial order 

for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Barkhorn v. 

Ports Am. Chesapeake, LLC, No. 1:10-cv-00750-SKG (D. Md. 

Mar. 29 & Nov. 5, 2013). 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