UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1040
JOHN E. CONWAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY;
PROVIDENT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CA-99-150)
Submitted: July 1, 2003 Decided: July 25, 2003
Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brenton D. Adams, BRENT ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, Dunn, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Erna A.P. Womble, Jack M. Strauch, George K. Evans,
Jr., WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, P.L.L.C., Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
John E. Conway appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of Paul Revere Life Insurance Co. (“Paul
Revere”) on his claims related to a disability income policy under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (2000).
We review 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). We view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix and
the district court’s order and find no reversible error. The
district court properly concluded Conway was not totally disabled
within the meaning of the Plan because Conway was able to perform
the important duties of his occupation. See McOsker v. Paul Revere
Life Ins. Co., 279 F.3d 586, 588 (8th Cir. 2002). We also conclude
the district court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to
strike Paul Revere’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Conway v. Paul
Revere Life Ins. Co., No. CA-99-150 (W.D.N.C. filed Dec. 6, 2002;
3
entered Dec. 9, 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
4