INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, Local 333, AFL-CIO v. Sedhom, GLEASON & MATHEWS, P.C., New York, New York

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2548
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION,
Local 333, AFL-CIO; DOUGLAS F. WAGNER, JR.,
individually and in the capacity of President
of International Longshoremen’s Association;
CLIFTON G. GROSS, individually and in the
capacity of Vice President of International
Longshoremen’s Association,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, AFL-
CIO; RICHARD P. HUGHES, JR., individually and
in the capacity of General International Vice
President, International Longshoremen’s Asso-
ciation; HORACE T. ALSTON, individually and in
the capacity of International Vice President,
International Longshoremen’s Association; IN-
TERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, Local
2066, AFL-CIO,
Defendants - Appellees.
STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE,
INC.,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-99-
2653-L)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted: April 28, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joel A. Smith, Travis M. Mastroddi, KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS, P.A.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Ernest L. Mathews, Jr., Rania
V. Sedhom, GLEASON & MATHEWS, P.C., New York, New York; James R.
Rosenberg, ABATO, RUBENSTEIN & ABATO, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying its
motion for preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We find
that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Ap-
pellants would not likely suffer irreparable injury during the
course of litigating this action. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S.
61, 90 (1974). Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the rea-
soning of the district court. See International Longshoremen’s
Ass’n, Loc. 333, AFL-CIO v. International Longshoremen’s Ass’n,
AFL-CIO No. CA-99-2653 (D. Md. Nov. 2, 1999). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --