Dean v. Daimler Chrysler Life, Disability & Health Care Benefits Program

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2143
DONNA DEAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAIMLER CHRYSLER LIFE, DISABILITY AND HEALTH CARE BENEFITS
PROGRAM,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-02992-RDB)
Submitted: July 11, 2011 Decided: July 19, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott B. Elkind, ELKIND & SHEA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Appellant. William E. Altman, Danielle C. Beasley, VERCRUYSSE
MURRAY & CALZONE, P.C., Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donna Dean appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of Daimler Chrysler Life, Disability
and Health Care Benefits Program (“Chrysler”) in this Employee
Retirement Income Security Act action. We have carefully
reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and
conclude that Dean has waived appellate review of the arguments
in Sections II through V of her opening brief. Counsel failed
to adequately support the arguments with specific facts and
citations to the record, as required by Rule 28(a)(9)(A) of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to
comply with the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a
particular claim triggers abandonment of the claim on appeal.”);
Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Scalia,
Cir. J.) (declining to review “asserted but unanalyzed . . .
claim” because “appellate courts do not sit as self-directed
boards of legal inquiry and research, but [rather] . . . as
arbiters of legal questions presented and argued by the parties
before them”). This court cannot assume counsel’s duty to
advocate on Dean’s behalf.
With regard to Dean’s claim that the district court
failed to take into account Chrysler’s financial woes, that
information related only to whether a conflict of interest
2
existed. Even without the financial information, the district
court found that a conflict of interest existed but that no
other factor indicated an abuse of discretion in connection with
Chrysler’s denials of benefits. See Booth v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. Assocs. Health & Welfare Plan, 201 F.3d 335, 342-43 (4th
Cir. 2000) (discussing eight factors pursuant to which courts
determine whether an abuse of discretion exists). Moreover,
this information was not part of the administrative record upon
which the denial was based. Thus, it was not properly before
the district court. See Bernstein v. Capital Care, Inc., 70
F.3d 783, 788-89 (4th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 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
3