Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Whittington v. Union Carbide Corp, 95-2251 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2251 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 22, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2251 CHARLES WHITTINGTON; LINDA WHITTINGTON, his wife; ASHLEY WHITTINGTON, his daughter, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; ROBERT KENNEDY, Chief Executive Officer of Union Carbide Cor- poration; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2251 CHARLES WHITTINGTON; LINDA WHITTINGTON, his wife; ASHLEY WHITTINGTON, his daughter, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; ROBERT KENNEDY, Chief Executive Officer of Union Carbide Cor- poration; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-526) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Whittington, Linda Whittington, Ashley Whittington, Appel- lants Pro Se. Roger Allen Wolfe, Erin Elizabeth Magee, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Joseph Trovato, Allan M. Marcus, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, New York, New York, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order granting sum- mary judgment to the Defendants on their action claiming that Union Carbide Corporation wrongfully denied long term disability benefits to Charles Whittington. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Whittington v. Union Carbide Corp., No. CA-94-526 (S.D.W. Va. June 6, 1995). 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 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer