Filed: Jun. 21, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-4018 _ Leugene Cash Bettis, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Teamsters Brewery Workers Pension * Plan, St. Louis, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: June 14, 1999 Filed: June 21, 1999 _ Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Leugene Cash Bettis appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in Bettis's action to
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-4018 _ Leugene Cash Bettis, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Teamsters Brewery Workers Pension * Plan, St. Louis, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: June 14, 1999 Filed: June 21, 1999 _ Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Leugene Cash Bettis appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in Bettis's action to ..
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 98-4018 ___________ Leugene Cash Bettis, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Teamsters Brewery Workers Pension * Plan, St. Louis, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: June 14, 1999 Filed: June 21, 1999 ___________ Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Leugene Cash Bettis appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in Bettis's action to recover pension benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. After careful review of the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude that no error of law appears in the district court's ruling and that an extended discussion is unnecessary. Contrary to Bettis's view, the record is clear that Bettis was not eligible for pension benefits under the St. Louis Teamsters Brewery Workers Pension Plan because she was not an employee of a participating union employer. We thus affirm the district court's ruling. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
