American Heartland Port, Inc v. American Port Holdings, Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cv-00050-FPS-JES. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999718489]. Mailed to: Patrick DiCarlo. [14-1801, 14-1809, 14-2249]

Appeal: 14-1801

Doc: 81

Filed: 12/15/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1801

AMERICAN HEARTLAND PORT, INCORPORATED;
SHELLEY REED; MISTY SHANNON,

JO

LYNN

KRAINA;

Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN
PORT
HOLDINGS,
INCORPORATED,
a
Delaware
corporation;
PATRICK
NICHOLAS
DICARLO,
an
individual;
ARCELORMITTAL
WEIRTON
LLC,
a
corporation;
DANIEL
L.
DICKERSON, individually; ANDREW S. FELLOWS, individually;
JAMES C. BRECKINRIDGE, individually,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
ALLIED INVESTMENT PARTNERS PJSC, a foreign corporation;
ARCELORMITTAL
WEIRTON
INCORPORATED;
STANLEY
BALLAS,
individually; CHANNEL POINT PARTNERS, a corporation; JAMES
MARTODAM, individually,
Defendants.

No. 14-1809

AMERICAN HEARTLAND PORT, INCORPORATED;
SHELLEY REED; MISTY SHANNON,

JO

LYNN

KRAINA;

Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN
PORT
HOLDINGS,
INCORPORATED,
a
Delaware
corporation;
PATRICK
NICHOLAS
DICARLO,
an
individual;

Appeal: 14-1801

Doc: 81

Filed: 12/15/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

ARCELORMITTAL
WEIRTON
LLC,
a
corporation;
DANIEL
L.
DICKERSON, individually; ANDREW S. FELLOWS, individually;
JAMES C. BRECKINRIDGE, individually,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
ALLIED INVESTMENT PARTNERS PJSC, a foreign corporation;
ARCELORMITTAL
WEIRTON
INCORPORATED;
JAMES
MARTODAM,
individually; STANLEY BALLAS, individually; CHANNEL POINT
PARTNERS, a corporation,
Defendants.

No. 14-2249

AMERICAN HEARTLAND PORT, INCORPORATED;
SHELLEY REED; MISTY SHANNON,

JO

LYNN

KRAINA;

Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN
PORT
HOLDINGS,
INCORPORATED,
a
Delaware
corporation;
PATRICK
NICHOLAS
DICARLO,
an
individual;
ARCELORMITTAL
WEIRTON
LLC,
a
corporation;
DANIEL
L.
DICKERSON, individually; ANDREW S. FELLOWS, individually;
JAMES C. BRECKINRIDGE, individually,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
ALLIED INVESTMENT PARTNERS PJSC, a foreign corporation;
ARCELORMITTAL
WEIRTON
INCORPORATED;
JAMES
MARTODAM,
individually; STANLEY BALLAS, individually; CHANNEL POINT
PARTNERS, a corporation,
Defendants.

2

Appeal: 14-1801

Doc: 81

Filed: 12/15/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00050-FPS-JES)

Submitted:

November 24, 2015

Decided:

December 15, 2015

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Hampton Tinney, Jr., TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellants. Wendy G. Adkins, Stephen Michael
LaCagnin, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Dennis
Joseph Powers, Kenneth L. Schmetterer, DLA PIPER US LLP,
Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees.
Patrick Nicholas DiCarlo,
Newport Beach, California, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

Appeal: 14-1801

Doc: 81

Filed: 12/15/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

PER CURIAM:
American

Heartland

Port,

Inc.,

Jo

Lynn

Kraina,

Shelley

Reed, and Misty Shannon (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal the
district court’s order dismissing their claims against Patrick
Nicholas DiCarlo (No. 14-1801) and the order granting summary
judgment to ArcelorMittal Weirton, LLC (No. 14-1809). *
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we affirm.

We have

Accordingly,

Am. Heartland Port, Inc. v. Am. Port Holdings, Inc.,

No. 5:11-cv-00050-FPS-JES (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 21, 2014; July 17,
2014 & Oct. 8, 2014).
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

*

Plaintiffs also noted an appeal of the district court’s
order denying their motion for new trial, entered on October 8,
2014 (No. 14-2249).
Because Plaintiffs failed to brief this
issue in their informal opening brief, they have waived any
challenge to that order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,
177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important
document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to
issues preserved in that brief.”).
To the extent Plaintiffs’
argument in their brief challenging the district court’s denial
of their motion for a protective order relates to their motion
for new trial, we find no reversible error.

4