Gregory Kane v. UPS Pension Plan Board
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-03719-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999446782].. [14-1032]
Appeal: 14-1032
Doc: 35
Filed: 10/01/2014
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1032
GREGORY KANE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UPS PENSION PLAN BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-03719-RDB)
Submitted:
September 23, 2014
Decided:
October 1, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Denise M. Clark, CLARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. J. Timothy McDonald, THOMPSON HINE LLP, Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-1032
Doc: 35
Filed: 10/01/2014
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Kane appeals from the district court’s orders
granting summary judgment to Appellee and denying Kane’s motion
to
reinstate
parties
and
a
claim.
the
We
record,
have
and
we
reviewed
find
no
the
briefs
of
reversible
the
error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
Kane v. UPS Pension Plan, No. 1:11-cv-03719-RDB (D. Md.
Oct. 23 & Dec. 11, 2013).
In addition, we note that Kane raised
certain claims regarding his motion to reinstate for the first
time in his reply brief.
We find these claims waived.
Equal
Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 604 n.4 (4th
Cir. 2010) (holding that argument not raised in opening brief is
waived).
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
before this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?