Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pretzel v. CRSS Flexible, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a case alleging deprivation of rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The appellate court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in Pretzel v. CRSS Flexible Benefits Plan, No. CA-94-998-5-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 1995). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-06-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-3103

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a case alleging deprivation of rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The appellate court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in Pretzel v. CRSS Flexible Benefits Plan, No. CA-94-998-5-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 1995). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views2 pages

    Pretzel v. CRSS Flexible, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a case alleging deprivation of rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The appellate court reviewed the record and district court opinion and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling based on the reasoning in Pretzel v. CRSS Flexible Benefits Plan, No. CA-94-998-5-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 1995). The appellate court dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-3103

    LORIE C. PRETZEL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CRSS FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN; JOHN HANCOCK
    MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COPANY; CRRS, INCORPORATED,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-94-998-5-F)
    Submitted:

    May 29, 1997

    Decided:

    June 23, 1997

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lorie C. Pretzel, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Powell, HAYNSWORTH,
    BALDWIN, JOHNSON & GREAVES, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary
    judgment in favor of the Defendants in this action alleging a deprivation of Appellants rights under the Employee Retirement Income
    Act of 1974. 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461 (West 1985 & Supp. 1997). We
    have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find
    no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
    district

    court.

    Pretzel

    v.

    CRSS

    Flexible,

    No.

    CA-94-998-5-F

    (E.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 1995). 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

    You might also like