UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1473
MICHAEL W. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BOWMAN APPLE PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED;
BOWMAN APPLE PRODUCTS PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND
TRUST,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James H. Michael, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (CA-00-33-5)
Submitted: October 23, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002
Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas M. Lawson, Ann K. Crenshaw, LAWSON & SILEK, P.L.C.,
Winchester, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Ullrich, Dana R.
Cormier, WHARTON, ALDHIZER & WEAVER, P.L.C., Harrisonburg,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael W. Davis appeals the district court’s order adopting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Appellees’
motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Davis’ complaint
for declaratory judgment on statute of limitations grounds. In his
complaint, Davis alleges a violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. We
affirm.
This Court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo.
Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th
Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no
genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The evidence is viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
With these standards in mind, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. Davis v. Bowman Apple Products Co., Inc., No.
CA-00-33-5 (W.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2002). 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
2