Metropolitan Life v. Canty ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1788
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DENISE D. CANTY,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
TERESA SAUNDERS-WIGGINS; INGRID SAUNDERS;
GEORGE H. SAUNDERS, JR.; ARETHA BENJAMIN, as
Mother and Next Friend of Quentin B. Saunders,
a Minor; BEVERLY POWELL SISK, Guardian ad
litem for Quentin B. Saunders, minor,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-96-19-3)
Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: July 21, 1998
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Denise D. Canty, Appellant Pro Se. Alvin Pasternak, Sherry Susan
Laird, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, New York, New York, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court’s order dismissing
her claim as a beneficiary to life insurance proceeds. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm as
modified.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) brought this
interpleader action in district court against the five children of
George Saunders, a deceased federal employee. Pursuant to the Fed-
eral Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act of 1951 (FEGLIA), the
decedent was covered under a group policy issued by MetLife to the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). See 5 U.S.C. § 8701-16(1994). The Appellant was a named beneficiary in two forms; how-
ever, as the district court correctly concluded, both forms were
invalid. See 5 U.S.C. § 8705(a); see also Ward v. Stratton, 988
F.2d 65, 67 (8th Cir. 1993). We therefore affirm the district
court’s order but modify it to reflect the denial of the Appel-
lant’s motion for summary judgment.
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 AS MODIFIED
3