Filed: Jun. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1331 RUTH KLEJNOT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOES 1-5, Inclusive; STEVEN R. COHEN, Acting Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 3732-MJG) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1331 RUTH KLEJNOT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOES 1-5, Inclusive; STEVEN R. COHEN, Acting Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 3732-MJG) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1331 RUTH KLEJNOT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOES 1-5, Inclusive; STEVEN R. COHEN, Acting Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 3732-MJG) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ruth Klejnot, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ruth Klejnot appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees in her civil action for insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Klejnot v. Does 1-5, No. CA- 00-3732-MJG (D. Md. filed Dec. 17, 2001; entered Dec. 18, 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 2