United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 30, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50260
Summary Calendar
FREDERICK C. FERMIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division
CA No. SA-04-CA-463-PM
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Frederick C. Fermin appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant United Healthcare
Insurance Company (“United”). Fermin, acting as pro se litigant,
brought suit against United, asserting a variety of claims based
upon United’s denial of coverage for two extended stay visits
under three group hospital indemnity plans provided under master
group policies issued by United to the American Association of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-10594
-2-
Retired Persons (“AARP”). The plans provided limited hospital
benefits to AARP covered members, including Fermin.
I.
The district court held that Fermin failed to state a claim
for which relief may be granted because (1) his claim for
violations of 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§ 3.3073, 3.4020 and TEX. INS.
CODE arts 3.51-2, 3.70-3 do not apply to the plans at issue and
do not afford Fermin a private right of action, (2) his claims
for violation of 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§3.3009 3.3040(d) and TEX.
INS. CODE art. 3.70-4-(B) do not apply to the plans or coverage at
issue, and (3) Fermin has no private right of action for federal
criminal mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
The district court further held that United properly denied
Fermin’s claims for reimbursement for his two facility stays
because there was no genuine issue of material fact that the two
facilities did not meet the definition of a covered “hospital”
provided under the plan.
Additionally, the district court granted summary judgment
for Untied on all of Fermin’s claims, included claims for
violations of TEX. INS. CODE arts. 21.21, 21.55, and TEX. BUS. &
COMM. Code §§ 17.41-17.43 (“DTPA”), usury, and gross negligence
and fraud, because of his failure to adduce evidence or facts
supporting any of those claims. The court also held that Fermin
is not entitled to have the district court reopen a matter before
and reconsider an order issued by another district judge. And
No. 04-10594
-3-
finally, the court denied Fermin’s request for a trial on the
issue of alleged perjury based on United’s consolidation of his
AARP accounts because Fermin failed to show any change in his
coverage as a result of the consolidation or why a trial would be
appropriate. Thus, the district court dismissed all of Fermin’s
claims with prejudice. Fermin timely appealed.
II.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Blakely
v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 406 F.3d 747, 750 (5th Cir.
2005).
On appeal, Fermin’s brief raises arguments that fall into
two categories: (1) arguments raised for the first time on
appeal, and (2) arguments previously raised and properly disposed
of by the district court. We do not consider evidence or
arguments that were not presented to the district court for its
consideration in ruling on the motion. Louque v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 314 F.3d 776, 779-80, n. 1 (5th Cir. 2002). As for the
arguments raised below, Fermin raises no coherent arguments, nor
does he present any evidence to support a finding of judicial
error to justify reversal of the district court. Therefore,
after a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm
the district court’s grant of summary judgment for United for
essentially the reasons as well-stated in its memorandum opinion
and order.
No. 04-10594
-4-
AFFIRMED.