Barkhorn v. Ports America Chesapeake, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00750-SKG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999360041]. Mailed to: Ronald Barkhorn, John Delawder, Richard Delawder, Michael Schultz. [13-2457]

Appeal: 13-2457

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/21/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2457

RONALD BARKHORN, et al.; MICHAEL SCHULTZ; RICHARD DELAWDER;
JOHN DELAWDER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
JOHN DELWADER; RICK DEWALDER; MIKE SHULTZ; TERRY NEBLITT;
JOHN ZIELINSKI; MARK HAGOHAN; JAMES RUFF; FRANCESCO SOZIO;
JOE WILLIAMS; JOHN GRIFFIN; PAUL SINGER; BOB SMOOT; JOHN
ZELINSKI; MARK HAGOPIAN; ROBERT SMOOT; JIM GRIFFIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PORTS AMERICA CHESAPEAKE, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Susan K. Gauvey, Magistrate Judge.
(1:10-cv-00750-SKG)

Submitted:

April 30, 2014

Decided:

May 21, 2014

Before SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Appeal: 13-2457

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/21/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald
Barkhorn,
Michael
Schultz,
Richard
Delawder,
John
Delawder, Appellants Pro Se.
Michael J. Collins, MICHAEL J.
COLLINS, PC, Highland, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-2457

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/21/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Ronald

Barkhorn,

Michael

Schultz,

Richard

Delawder,

and John Delawder appeal the magistrate judge’s ruling * granting
judgment

in

America”),

favor
after

of
a

Ports

bench

America

trial

in

Chesapeake,
their

civil

LLC

(“Ports

action

for

discrimination and retaliation and the magistrate judge’s order
denying their post-judgment motions.

We affirm.

We review a judgment following a bench trial under a
mixed standard of review.

Factual findings may be reversed only

if clearly erroneous, while conclusions of law are examined de
novo.

Roanoke Cement Co. v. Falk Corp., 413 F.3d 431, 433

(4th Cir. 2005).

“[W]hen a district court’s factual finding in

a bench trial is based upon assessments of witness credibility,
such finding is deserving of the highest degree of appellate
deference.”
531 F.3d

Evergreen

302,

308

(4th

Int’l,
Cir.

S.A.
2008)

v.

Norfolk

(internal

Dredging

quotation

Co.,
marks

omitted).
Having reviewed the parties’ informal briefs and the
record before us, we perceive no basis on which to overturn the
magistrate

judge’s

judgment.

We

reject

as

without

merit

Appellants’ argument that the magistrate judge applied the wrong

*

The parties in this case consented to the jurisdiction of
the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2012).

3

Appeal: 13-2457

legal

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/21/2014

standard

assessing

and

discrimination

in

defer

Pg: 4 of 4

their
to

prima

the

facie

case

magistrate

for

judge’s

findings - premised on credibility determinations - that Ports
America’s stated reasons for its employment decisions were not a
pretext for discrimination.

We further reject as without merit

Appellants’ contentions that the case should be remanded for
additional fact-finding by the magistrate judge and that their
earnings reflect discrimination and retaliation.
With respect to the magistrate judge’s order denying
Appellants’ post-judgment motions, we have reviewed the record
and

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

magistrate judge’s judgment and further affirm the denial order
for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge.
Ports

Am.

Chesapeake,

Mar. 29 & Nov. 5, 2013).

LLC,

No.

Barkhorn v.

1:10-cv-00750-SKG

(D. Md.

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

4