Ward v. Maloney

Fourth Circuit

Ward v. Maloney

171 F. App'x 986

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 2006

Docket05-1994

StatusUnpublished

This text of 171 F. App'x 986 (Ward v. Maloney) 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

Ward v. Maloney, 171 F. App'x 986 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Mark A. Ward appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Peter E. Maloney, administrator of the LIN Broadcasting Corporation Retirement Plan, whom Ward claimed failed to produce documents pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ward v. Maloney, 386 F.Supp.2d 607 (M.D.N.C.2005) (No. CA-05-424). We also deny Ward’s motion for preparation of a transcript at the government’s expense. 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:

Mark A. Ward appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Peter E. Maloney, administrator of the LIN Broadcasting Corporation Retirement Plan, whom Ward claimed failed to produce documents pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ward v. Maloney, 386 F.Supp.2d 607 (M.D.N.C.2005) (No. CA-05-424). We also deny Ward’s motion for preparation of a transcript at the government’s expense. 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)

171 F. App'x 986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-maloney-ca4-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack