Brian Warch v. International Longshoremen, No. 13-2443 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2443 BRIAN WARCH; SAMUEL THAMES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and ABRAM SEWELL; RODNEY STITH, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION; MTC; PORTS AMERICA, 333; Defendants - Appellees, and AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC.; CERES TERMINALS, MID-ATLANTIC TERMINALS/WWL; TARTAN TERMINALS, INC., INC.; Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Susan K. Gauvey, Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-00044-SKG) Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. May 2, 2014 Brian Warch, Samuel Thames, Appellants Pro Se. Jennifer Lynn Stair, TERRASA & STAIR, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael J. Collins, MICHAEL J. COLLINS, PC, Highland, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Brian Warch and Samuel Thames appeal the magistrate judge s order * dismissing in part and denying relief in part on their civil action for breach of duty of fair representation against Defendant International Longshoremen s Association, Local 333, and challenging employment practices of Defendants Steamship Trade Association, MTC, and Ports America and the magistrate judge s order denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. and find no reversible error. reasons stated by the We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we affirm for the magistrate judge. Warch v. Int l Longshoremen s Ass n, Local 333, No. 1:12-cv-00044-SKG (D. Md. Mar. 27 & Oct. 29, 2013). dispense with contentions are oral We deny the motion to intervene and argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * The parties in this case consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2012). 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.