Plaintiff-Intervenors-Appellants appeal from the order of the district court denying their requests for additional attorney’s fees. This case has a long history and has been the subject of prior appeals to this Court. See EEOC v. United Ass’n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus., 235 F.3d 244, 248 (6th Cir. 2000), on reh’g in part, EEOC v. United Ass’n of Journeymen, 249 F.3d 1085, 1085 (6th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); EEOC v. United Ass’n of Journeymen, No. 93-3248, 1993 WL 366396 (6th Cir. Sept.20, 1993) (unpublished table decision) (dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction). In the present appeal, PlaintiffIntervenors-Appellants assert that the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney’s fees because they are a prevailing party. Plaintiff-Intervenors also contend that the district court abused its discretion by ignoring this Court’s mandate and releasing funds to the Union which they claim were assessed as a coercive fíne.

After having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court’s comprehensive Order of March 25, 2003, accurately and adequately addresses all of the points Plaintiff-Intervenors raise in this appeal, and that no useful purpose would be served by the preparation of an additional opinion by this Court. We therefore AFFIRM the Order of the district court dated March 25, 2003.