Harrell v. CNA Insurance Companies

Fourth Circuit

Harrell v. CNA Insurance Companies

86 F. App'x 579

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 2004

Docket03-1698

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 F. App'x 579 (Harrell v. CNA Insurance Companies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harrell v. CNA Insurance Companies, 86 F. App'x 579 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Leon Harrell appeals the district court’s orders denying his disability claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1168 (2000), his request for sanctions under 29 U.S.C. § 1132, his requests for attorneys’ fees and costs, and his request for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its various orders. See Harrell v. CNA Insurance Co., No. CA-99-292-4-12 (D.S.C. filed Jan 15 and entered Jan. 16, 2003; Jan. 21, 2003; May 14, 2003; May 15, 2003). 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Leon Harrell appeals the district court’s orders denying his disability claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1168 (2000), his request for sanctions under 29 U.S.C. § 1132, his requests for attorneys’ fees and costs, and his request for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its various orders. See Harrell v. CNA Insurance Co., No. CA-99-292-4-12 (D.S.C. filed Jan 15 and entered Jan. 16, 2003; Jan. 21, 2003; May 14, 2003; May 15, 2003). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 F. App'x 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrell-v-cna-insurance-companies-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack