Filed: Mar. 15, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2150 ROSALIE A. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and NOVANT HEALTH INCORPORATED, a/k/a Presbyterian Health Services Corporation, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-99-26-3-V) Submitted: March 6, 2002 Decided: March 15, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WIL
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2150 ROSALIE A. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and NOVANT HEALTH INCORPORATED, a/k/a Presbyterian Health Services Corporation, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-99-26-3-V) Submitted: March 6, 2002 Decided: March 15, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILL..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2150 ROSALIE A. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and NOVANT HEALTH INCORPORATED, a/k/a Presbyterian Health Services Corporation, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-99-26-3-V) Submitted: March 6, 2002 Decided: March 15, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Lynn Bishop, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Alvin Pasternak, Susan Elizabeth Belmont, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, New York, New York, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rosalie A. Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. CA-99-26-3-V (W.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2