Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Ronald Barkhorn, Michael Schultz, Richard Delawder, and John Delawder appeal the magistrate judge’s ruling * granting judgment in favor of Ports America Chesapeake, LLC (“Ports America”), after a bench trial in their civil 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). “[Wjhen 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.” Evergreen Int’l, S.A. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 531 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

*193 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 legal standard in assessing their prima facie case for discrimination and defer to the magistrate 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. Barkhorn v. Ports Am. Chesapeake, LLC, No. 1:10-cv-00750-SKG (D.Md. Mar. 29 & Nov. 5, 2013). 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.