Blair v. National City Mortgage Corp. Welfare Benefits Plan , 472 F. App'x 157 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1958
EVA LYNN BLAIR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE CORPORATION WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN;
LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, a/k/a Liberty
Mutual Group,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:09-cv-00906-AW)
Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012
Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Denise M. Clark, Julia Roumm, CLARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Gina D. Wodarski, EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER
LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Fiona W. Ong, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL,
LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eva Lynn Blair appeals the district court’s orders
granting summary judgment to Defendants in her civil action,
and denying her motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). Our review of the record reveals that Blair’s outside
work for pay understandably terminated her entitlement to the
long-term disability benefits she had been receiving from her
former employer’s welfare benefit plan, which was covered by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See generally
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989)
(providing de novo review for denial of ERISA benefits, absent a
grant of discretion to administrator in contested benefits
plan); Bogart v. Chappell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005)
(noting that Rule 59(e) motions are reviewed for an abuse of
discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Blair v. Nat’l City Mortg. Corp. Welfare
Benefits Plan, No. 8:09-cv-00906-AW (D. Md. June 20, 2011 &
Sept. 2, 2011). 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