Henderson v. Naland

Fourth Circuit

Henderson v. Naland

325 F. App'x 253

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 28, 2009·No. 09-1245·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

David E. Henderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action summarily asserting that Defendants refused to help him in'obtaining the medical retirement benefits he was allegedly denied in 1981, and asking his former union to proceed on his written request for benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Henderson v. Naland, No. 1:08-cv-00535-LMB-TCB (E.D.Va. February 17, 2009). 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:

David E. Henderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action summarily asserting that Defendants refused to help him in'obtaining the medical retirement benefits he was allegedly denied in 1981, and asking his former union to proceed on his written request for benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Henderson v. Naland, No. 1:08-cv-00535-LMB-TCB (E.D.Va. February 17, 2009). 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.

Henderson v. Naland, 325 F. App'x 253 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

325 F. App'x 253 (Henderson v. Naland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.