CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

JAMES E. MYERS; ELLEN ECKERT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee,
THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.


No. 07-3817

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 06-07045—Vernelis K. Armstrong, Magistrate Judge.
Submitted: May 2, 2008
Decided and Filed: May 21, 2008
Before: KENNEDY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges; HOOD, Senior District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs James Myers and Ellen Eckert filed the present case under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence on the part of a federal postal employee whose mail truck struck the car driven by Myers and in which Eckert was a passenger. The United States filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court found for the government and dismissed the case. Myers and Eckert timely appealed. For the following reasons we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

GERARD F. KOLPACKE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CSX PENSION PLAN; CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.; CSX CORPORATION; CSX CORPORATION COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL PLAN; CSX CORPORATION GROUP LIFE INSURANCE PLAN,
Defendants-Appellees.


No. 07-1959

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 05-73734—Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.
Argued: May 2, 2008
Decided and Filed: May 21, 2008
Before: KENNEDY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges; HOOD, Senior District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Gerald F. Kolpacke appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on his claim of wrongful denial of benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 et seq. Kolpacke alleges that defendants arbitrarily and capriciously denied his claimed benefits by misapplying the relevant pension plan. The district court granted summary judgment in defendants’ favor because Kolpacke had failed to show that defendants’ had arbitrarily and capriciously applied the terms of the pension plan in calculating Kolpacke’s estimated benefits.

We have carefully read the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants and its order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and we agree no genuine issues of material fact exist and defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Kolpacke’s claim. Because the district court’s decisions are well-reasoned, we see no reason to embellish upon its opinions. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on Kolpacke’s ERISA claim for the reasons stated in the district court’s orders.