Filed: Feb. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-1417 _ Estelean Jeanette Dodge lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock _ Submitted: January 26, 2018 Filed: February 13, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Estelean Jeanette Dodge appeals after th
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-1417 _ Estelean Jeanette Dodge lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock _ Submitted: January 26, 2018 Filed: February 13, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Estelean Jeanette Dodge appeals after the..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-1417
___________________________
Estelean Jeanette Dodge
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: January 26, 2018
Filed: February 13, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Estelean Jeanette Dodge appeals after the District Court1 dismissed her
complaint alleging that she had been wrongfully denied long-term disability benefits
1
The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
and asserting a claim under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. The
District Court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, concluding in a well-reasoned order that the cause of action was
time-barred. After de novo review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper for the
reasons stated by the District Court.2 See Kelly v. City of Omaha,
813 F.3d 1070,
1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review).
We affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
2
We decline to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal or documents
that were not before the District Court. See Dubinsky v. Mermart, LLC,
595 F.3d
812, 819 (8th Cir. 2010); Griffin v. Super Valu,
218 F.3d 869, 871 (8th Cir. 2000).
-2-