Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Massachusetts Mutual v. Lanham, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company in a civil action brought by Milliet K. Lanham under ERISA. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. The district court had granted summary judgment to Massachusetts Mutual and denied Lanham's subsequent motion to reconsider that decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-06-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-2329

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company in a civil action brought by Milliet K. Lanham under ERISA. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. The district court had granted summary judgment to Massachusetts Mutual and denied Lanham's subsequent motion to reconsider that decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    Massachusetts Mutual v. Lanham, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company in a civil action brought by Milliet K. Lanham under ERISA. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. The district court had granted summary judgment to Massachusetts Mutual and denied Lanham's subsequent motion to reconsider that decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-2329

    MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MILLIET K. LANHAM,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-04-3868-WDQ)

    Submitted:

    May 31, 2006

    Decided:

    June 27, 2006

    Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Scott B. Elkind, ELKIND & SHEA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for


    Appellant. Nell B. Strachan, VENABLE, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Milliet K. Lanham appeals the district courts orders
    granting summary judgment against her in this civil action under
    the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and denying her motion
    to reconsider.
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    See Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lanham,

    No. CA-04-3868-WDQ (D. Md. Sept. 19 & Oct. 27, 2005).

    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 -

    You might also like