Elawyers Elawyers

Dolin v. Trustees UMWA 1974, 02-2445 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2445 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 08, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2445 CECIL DOLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TRUSTEES OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1974 PENSION PLAN AND TRUST, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-02-224-2) Submitted: July 31, 2003 Decided: October 8, 2003 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2445 CECIL DOLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TRUSTEES OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 1974 PENSION PLAN AND TRUST, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-02-224-2) Submitted: July 31, 2003 Decided: October 8, 2003 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles F. Donnelly, Mark W. Carbone, DONNELLY & CARBONE, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Glenda S. Finch, Deputy General Counsel, Michele Schoeppe, Senior Associate Counsel, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cecil Dolin appeals the district court’s order and order on reconsideration granting summary judgment in favor of the Trustees in this action for disability pension benefits under the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan and Trust. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dolin v. Trustee of the UMWA, No. CA-02-224-2 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 1, 2003; Nov. 18, 2003). 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