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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-1032 Doc: 35 Filed: 10/01/2014 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1032 GREGORY KANE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UPS PENSION PLAN BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?