
    Willie GRAVES, Jr.; Johnny Graves; Henry Felder; Donald O. Williams; L.J. Bartell; Paul E. Williams; Early Walker, Jr.; Willie Peterson; Arthur Hanna; Gilbert Richardson, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. WELLMAN, INCORPORATED; Thomas Duff, individually and in his official capacity as CEO; Donald Cartwright, individually and as Vice President of Fiber Strategy and New Product Development and the Engineering Resin Division; Audie Dupuis, individually and in his official capacity; Jerry Chastain, individually and in his official capacity; J. Dalvin Avant, individually and in his official capacity; Jeff Seals, individually and in his official capacity; John Hobson, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-2214.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 16, 2006.
    Decided: Feb. 21, 2006.
    Willie Graves, Jr., Johnny Graves, Henry Felder, Donald O. Williams, L.J. Bar-tell, Paul E. Williams, Early Walker, Jr., Willie Peterson, Arthur Hanna, Gilbert Richardson, Appellants Pro Se. George Daniel Ellzey, Jonathan Pharr Pearson, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    
      Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs/Appellants appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment for Defendants/Appellees in this Labor Management Relations Act action. On appeal, Appellants allege that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate their action. As noted by the district court, however, this claims fails because the magistrate judge had jurisdiction to make a recommendation to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Graves v. Wellman, Inc., No. CA-03-2098-4-TLW (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2005). We 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  