Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Adkins v. Holland, 03-1377 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1377 Visitors: 22
Filed: Feb. 17, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1377 WILLIAM T. ADKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL H. HOLLAND; MARTY D. HUDSON; JOSEPH P. BRENNAN; B. V. HYLER, As Trustees; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, 1974 Pension Plan and Trust, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CA-02-249-2) Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 17, 2
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1377 WILLIAM T. ADKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL H. HOLLAND; MARTY D. HUDSON; JOSEPH P. BRENNAN; B. V. HYLER, As Trustees; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, 1974 Pension Plan and Trust, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CA-02-249-2) Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 17, 2004 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert B. Wilson, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Glenda S. Finch, Deputy General Counsel, Christopher F. Clarke, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William T. Adkins appeals the district court’s order dismissing, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), all but one of his claims for disability pension benefits under the provisions of the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan, and the order granting summary judgment to the Trustees of the Plan on his remaining claim. 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. See Adkins v. Holland, No. CA-02-249-2 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 20, 2002 & Mar. 24, 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