Sawyer v. Potash Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1429
D’ANNA RUSSO SAWYER, Individually and as
Administratrix of the Estate of Douglas Gray
Sawyer,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN, a/k/a and
d/b/a PCS Administration(USA), Inc. as Policy
Holder, Plan Sponsor, Participating Employer;
PCS U.S. FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN; EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS, as Plan Administrator; PCS PHOSPHATE
COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Plan Sponsors and Plan
Administrators of Health and Welfare Plans;
AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, as Plan Insurers;
AIG CLAIM SERVICES, INCORPORATED, as Plan
Insurers and Administrators,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JOHN DOES 1-5; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP,
INCORPORATED, as Plan Insurers,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (4:04-cv-00078-H)
Submitted: March 14, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D’Anna Russo Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel McKinley Gray, III,
WARD & SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina; Jeremy R. Sayre, WARD
& SMITH, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina; Ann S. Estridge, CRANFILL,
SUMNER & HARTZOG, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, Robert Boyd
Jones, Jr., CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, L.L.P., Wilmington, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
D’Anna Russo Sawyer appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her action filed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001-1461 (2000). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
deny Sawyer’s motion for stay and affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Sawyer v. Potash Corp., No. 4:04-cv-00078-H
(E.D.N.C. Mar. 1, 2006). 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
- 3 -