Mullins v. International Union

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2046 ESTHER MULLINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, Local No. 77, AFL-CIO of Washington, DC, a trade union; CHERRY HILL CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation; JAMES OPENSHAW, individually, and as President of Cherry Hill Construction, Incorporated, a foreign corporation; CHERYL SCHMELZE, Individually and as agent and employee of Cherry Hill Construction, Incorporated, a foreign corporation; YVETTE MATHIS, Individually and as agent and employee of Cherry Hill Construction, Incorporated, a foreign corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-1465) Submitted: March 31, 2003 Decided: April 14, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ted G. Yoakam, DAVID, KAMP & FRANK, L.L.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. W. Gary Kohlman, Jeffrey R. Freund, Devki Virk, Susan I. Brown, BREDHOFF & KAISER, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.; Monte Fried, Robert W. Hesselbacher, Jr., WRIGHT, CONSTABLE & SKEEN, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Esther Mullins appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action alleging breach of the duty of fair representation, breach of a collective bargaining agreement, defamation, and wrongful termination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mullins v. International Union of Operating Eng’rs., No. CA-01-1465 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2002). We grant the motion to file a supplemental appendix and 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 2