Line Pilots, 499 U.S. at 67, 111 S.Ct. 1127 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338, 73 S.Ct. 681, 97 L.Ed. 1048 (1953)). It follows from this that a union is granted considerable discretion in the handling and settling of grievances. Vaca, 386 U.S. at 192, 87 S.Ct. 903; see Griffin v. International Union, 469 F.2d 181, 183 (4th Cir.1972); Smith v. Local 7898, United Steelworkers of America, 834 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir.1987). Thus, a union is allowed to “screen grievances and press only those that it concludes will justify the expense and time involved in terms of benefitting the membership at large.” Griffin, 469 F.2d at 183 (citing Encina v. Tony Lama Boot Co., 448 F.2d 1264 (5th Cir.1971)); see Thompson v. Aluminum Company of America, 276 F.3d 651, 657-58 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). And, a union’s refusal to process a member’s
holding that a case is frivolous for  1915d now  1915e2bi when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success holding that regardless of other factors as to harms a movants likelihood of success must carry at least a fair chance of success on the merits in order to warrant interim relief internal quotation omitted holding that the commissioner has an obligation to refuse to grant a patent if he believes that doing so would be contrary to law holding that this court has discretion to hear arguments presented to it in the first instance provided that it otherwise has jurisdiction over the claim holding that union has discretion not to file a grievance that it believes has no chance of success due to mootness