UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE                
COMPANY,
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                 v.
CLIFFORD E. MCDONALD, JR.,                       No. 02-2062
     Intervenor/Defendant-Appellant,
                and
MICHAEL C. KELLY,
                           Defendant.
                                        
           Appeal from the United States District Court
            for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
            Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
                          (CA-01-1129-L)

                      Submitted: March 12, 2003

                      Decided: March 25, 2003

   Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.



Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


                             COUNSEL

Irwin E. Weiss, Baltimore, Maryland; Jerome J. Seidenman,
JEROME J. SEIDENMAN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-
lant. William C. Parler, Jr., PARLER & WOBBER, Towson, Mary-
land, for Appellee.
2             MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE v. MCDONALD
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).


                             OPINION

PER CURIAM:

   Clifford McDonald appeals the district court’s order entering a
declaratory judgment in favor of Mutual Benefit Insurance Co. on its
claim that Michael Kelly was a non-permissive user of a vehicle
owned by Multi-Complex Contractors that Kelly was driving during
a motor vehicle accident on June 24, 2000. McDonald also appeals
the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend judg-
ment and for a new trial. We affirm.

   We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo, and its
findings of facts for clear error. Minyard Enter., Inc. v. Southeastern
Chem. & Solvent Co., 

, 380 (4th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 52(a). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and
the supplemental joint appendix and conclude the district court prop-
erly entered judgment in favor of Mutual Benefit because Kelly was
operating the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation
of Multi-Complex policy and therefore was a non-permissive user of
the vehicle. See Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Bullock,

, 1225 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1986). Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mutual Benefit Ins.
Co. v. McDonald, No. CA-01-1129-L (D. Md. July 12, 2002 & Sept.
4, 2002). 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