Filed: Mar. 22, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1994 MARK A. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETER E. MALONEY, Plan Administrator, LIN Television Corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-05-424) Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1994 MARK A. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETER E. MALONEY, Plan Administrator, LIN Television Corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-05-424) Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1994
MARK A. WARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PETER E. MALONEY, Plan Administrator, LIN
Television Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-05-424)
Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 22, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. William McCardell Furr, WILLCOX &
SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia; Robert K. Taylor, PARTRIDGE, SNOW &
HAHN, L.L.P., Providence, Rhode Island, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark A. Ward appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Peter E. Maloney, administrator of the LIN
Broadcasting Corporation Retirement Plan, whom Ward claimed failed
to produce documents pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) (2000). We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Ward v. Maloney,
386 F. Supp. 2d 607 (M.D.N.C.
2005) (No. CA-05-424). We also deny Ward’s motion for preparation
of a transcript at the government’s expense. 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 -