UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1257 JAMES R. REGISTER; JACK B. WATSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus SEAFARERS PENSION PLAN; LOU DELMA, Plan Administrator of Seafarers Pension Plan; JOHN FAY, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; BYRON KELLEY; GEORGE MCCARTNEY, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; HOSEA PEREZ, Trustee of Sea- farers Pension Plan; AUGUSTINE TELLEZ, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; JOSEPH CECIRE, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; EDMOND DAVIS, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; MICHAEL DIPRISCO, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; WILLIAM PAGENDARM, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; MICHAEL SWAYNE, Trustee of Sea- farers Pension Plan; SEAFARERS WELFARE PLAN; PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF SEAFARERS WELFARE PLAN, Defendants - Appellants, and SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ATLANTIC, GULF, LAKES, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-143-7-F(1)) Submitted: July 17, 2001 Decided: July 30, 2001 Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellen A. Silver, Camp Springs, Maryland; Lisa Grafstein, GRAFSTEIN & WALCZYK, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Mark S. Thomas, Terence D. Freidman, Joanne Lambert, MAUPIN, TAYLOR & ELLIS, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting Appel- lees’ motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequent orders implementing the injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Register v. Seafarers Pension Plan, No. CA-00-143-7-F(1) (E.D.N.C. Jan 12 & 22, 2001; Feb. 8, 2001). 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 3