Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Pretzel v. CRSS Flexible, 95-3103 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-3103 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3103 LORIE C. PRETZEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CRSS FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN; JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COPANY; CRRS, INCOR- PORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-998-5-F) Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 23, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3103 LORIE C. PRETZEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CRSS FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN; JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COPANY; CRRS, INCOR- PORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-998-5-F) Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 23, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorie C. Pretzel, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Powell, HAYNSWORTH, BALDWIN, JOHNSON & GREAVES, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in this action alleging a dep- rivation of Appellant’s rights under the Employee Retirement Income Act of 1974. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (West 1985 & Supp. 1997). 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. Pretzel v. CRSS Flexible, No. CA-94-998-5-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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