James R. Register v. Seafarers Pension Plan

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1257
JAMES R. REGISTER; JACK B. WATSON,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
SEAFARERS PENSION PLAN; LOU DELMA, Plan
Administrator of Seafarers Pension Plan; JOHN
FAY, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; BYRON
KELLEY; GEORGE MCCARTNEY, Trustee of Seafarers
Pension Plan; HOSEA PEREZ, Trustee of Sea-
farers Pension Plan; AUGUSTINE TELLEZ, Trustee
of Seafarers Pension Plan; JOSEPH CECIRE,
Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; EDMOND
DAVIS, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan;
MICHAEL DIPRISCO, Trustee of Seafarers Pension
Plan; WILLIAM PAGENDARM, Trustee of Seafarers
Pension Plan; MICHAEL SWAYNE, Trustee of Sea-
farers Pension Plan; SEAFARERS WELFARE PLAN;
PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF SEAFARERS WELFARE PLAN,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, ATLANTIC, GULF, LAKES,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-143-7-F(1))

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted: July 17, 2001 Decided: July 30, 2001
Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ellen A. Silver, Camp Springs, Maryland; Lisa Grafstein, GRAFSTEIN
& WALCZYK, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Mark
S. Thomas, Terence D. Freidman, Joanne Lambert, MAUPIN, TAYLOR &
ELLIS, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting Appel-
lees’ motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequent orders
implementing the injunction. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-
trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
on the reasoning of the district court. See Register v. Seafarers
Pension Plan, No. CA-00-143-7-F(1) (E.D.N.C. Jan 12 & 22, 2001;
Feb. 8, 2001). 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

-- 3 of 3 --