Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Simon v. Group Insurance Plan, 01-1121 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1121 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1121 STEPHEN SIMON, individually and as ultimate assignee of Humanistic Mental Health foundation, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GROUP INSURANCE PLAN FOR AEROSPACE EMPLOYEES OF MARTIN MARIETTA, a/k/a Group Benefits Pro- gram for Salaried Employees of Martin Marietta Corporation; MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, as Plan Administrator, Defendants - Appellees, and EVA CARLSON, individually and as fiduciary; JOHN RUST, individually
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1121 STEPHEN SIMON, individually and as ultimate assignee of Humanistic Mental Health foundation, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GROUP INSURANCE PLAN FOR AEROSPACE EMPLOYEES OF MARTIN MARIETTA, a/k/a Group Benefits Pro- gram for Salaried Employees of Martin Marietta Corporation; MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, as Plan Administrator, Defendants - Appellees, and EVA CARLSON, individually and as fiduciary; JOHN RUST, individually and as fiduciary; TOM KINSTLE, individually and as fiduciary, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 99-3463-PJM) Submitted: July 10, 2001 Decided: July 27, 2001 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Simon, Appellant Pro Se. J. Eric Paltell, Lynn A. Clements, PIPER, MARBURY, RUDNICK & WOLFE, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephen Simon appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Rule 12(b)(6) claim. 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. See Simon v. Group Ins. Plan, No. CA-99-3463-PJM (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2000). No member of this court requested that a poll be taken with respect to Simon’s Suggestion For Hearing En Banc. Accordingly, we deny that petition. 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
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