Case Name: Kelly Monique CHERRY; Christopher Ingram; Jermaine Phillipe Mack; Winifred Devon Sweeney, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED, An Ohio Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-18
Citations: 402 F. App'x 764
Docket Number: No. 09-2237
Parties: Kelly Monique CHERRY; Christopher Ingram; Jermaine Phillipe Mack; Winifred Devon Sweeney, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED, An Ohio Corporation, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 764–764

Head Matter:
Kelly Monique CHERRY; Christopher Ingram; Jermaine Phillipe Mack; Winifred Devon Sweeney, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED, An Ohio Corporation, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 09-2237.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 8, 2010.
Decided: Nov. 18, 2010.
Alvin L. Pittman, Law Offices of Alvin L. Pittman, Los Angeles, California, for Appellants. Susan B. Molony, Alston & Bird, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Matthew J. Gilligan, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kelly Monique Cherry, Christopher Ingram, Jermaine Phillipe Mack, and Winifred Devon Sweeney appeal the district court's order and judgment granting United Parcel Service, Inc.'s summary judgment motions on their North Carolina state law claims for defamation, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and willful or wanton conduct. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. See Cherry v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 5:07-cv-00403-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2009). 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.