Case Name: Albert M. RHYMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 391, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-01
Citations: 9 F. App'x 88
Docket Number: No. 00-1564
Parties: Albert M. RHYMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 391, Defendant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and MICHAEL, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 9
Pages: 88–89

Head Matter:
Albert M. RHYMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 391, Defendant.
No. 00-1564.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 26, 2001.
Decided May 1, 2001.
William Joseph O’Malley, III, Greensboro, NC, for appellant.
John James Doyle, Jr., Constangy, Brooks & Smith, Winston-Salem, NC, for appellee.
ON BRIEF: Jill Stricklin Cox, Constangy, Brooks & Smith, Winston-Salem, NC, for appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and MICHAEL, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Albert Rhymer sued his former employer, United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), un der Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185. Rhymer does not allege that his union breached its duty of fair representation. Rhymer nonetheless argues that he has standing to sue because he claims that UPS engaged in fraud during arbitration proceedings relating to his discharge. The district court dismissed Rhymer's suit. The court held that Rhymer lacked standing because he does not allege that his union breached its duty of fair representation. In the alternative, the court dismissed the suit because Rhymer could have discovered the fraud prior to the arbitration proceedings. After considering the briefs, the joint appendix, and the arguments of counsel, we conclude that the district court reached the correct result. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rhymer v. United Parcel ' Service, Inc., No. 1:98CV00869 (M.D.N.C. Apr.10, 2000).
AFFIRMED.