USCA4 Appeal: 22-1685 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1685
SHERRIE N. PORTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FIRST BANKSHARES, INC.; PHILLIP VALLANDINGHAM; P. ANDREW
VALLANDINGHAM; SAMUEL VALLANDINGHAM; STEPHANIE V.
MAYBERRY; ROBERT JACKSON DILLEY; DANIEL T. YON; RONALD W.
WOODELL; MICHAEL S. LUNSFORD, as Directors of either or both First
Bankshares, Inc., and The First State Bank of Barboursville; ANY AND ALL
OTHER UNNAMED AND TO BE DETERMINED DIRECTORS THEREOF;
GUYAN HOLDING COMPANY; FIRST BANKSHARES TRUST PREFERRED
I,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
THE FIRST STATE BANK OF BARBOURSVILLE; THE FIRST COMPANY;
WEST VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND, INC.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00464)
Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1685 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
Before KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. *
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Paula L. Harbour, PAULA L. HARBOUR PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia;
W. Stephen Flesher, LAW OFFICES OF W. STEPHEN FLESHER, Barboursville, West
Virginia, for Appellant. J. Mark Adkins, William M. Lorensen, BOWLES RICE, LLP,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1685 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Sherrie N. Porter appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in
favor of Defendants on Porter’s remaining claim against her former employer and officers
and directors thereof, alleging that Defendants wrongfully failed to withdraw or transfer
assets in Porter’s stock employee ownership fund upon her request. The court had
previously dismissed Porter’s claim that Defendants mismanaged the company, causing
the value of the stock to drop, thereby diminishing the value of Porter’s retirement assets,
for lack of standing as only the plan trustee could bring such a claim. On appeal, Porter
does not challenge the district court’s rulings. Rather, she asserts a new claim: that the
administrator and trustees of the plan breached fiduciary duties owed to her. Because
Porter raises this claim for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider it. See In re
Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014). And because Porter fails to challenge the
district court’s rulings, Porter has waived any claim of error in the district court’s orders.
See Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 153 n.4, 6 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly,
we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3