Summary
affirming a dismissal with prejudice based on the statute of limitations
Summary of this case from High v. ChandlerOpinion
No. 15-2304
03-21-2016
CHRISTOPHER EUGENE BUCKNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; TEAMSTERS LOCAL 391, Defendants - Appellees.
Christopher Eugene Buckner, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Ballantine Molony, ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Glenn G. Patton, ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; J. David James, SMITH, JAMES, ROWLETT & COHEN, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-cv-00539-FL) Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Eugene Buckner, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Ballantine Molony, ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Glenn G. Patton, ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; J. David James, SMITH, JAMES, ROWLETT & COHEN, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Christopher Eugene Buckner filed a civil action in state court against United Parcel Service, Inc., and Teamsters Local 391, asserting various violations of North Carolina law. The district court determined that Buckner's claims were preempted under the Labor Management Relations Act and that removal to federal court was therefore proper. Buckner now appeals the district court's order accepting in part and denying in part the magistrate judge's recommendation, denying Buckner's motion to remand, dismissing some claims with prejudice as barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations, and dismissing his remaining claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Buckner v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 5:14-cv-00539-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2015). 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