U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2000

Rose v. Hudson

Rose v. Hudson
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 23, 2000

Rose v. Hudson

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1535

SAMUEL E. ROSE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

MARTY HUDSON; B. V. HYLER; MICHAEL HOLLAND; JOSEPH BRENNAN; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA HEALTH AND RETIREMENT FUNDS, by their Trustees, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-99-54-2)

Submitted: July 31, 2000 Decided: August 23, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel E. Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Charlie Richard Jessee, JESSEE & READ, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia; Carolyn O’Meara Dutrow, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Samuel E. Rose appeals from the district court’s order uphold- ing the denial of disability benefits by the Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Trust. Our de novo review of the record reveals that the Trustees’ decision is supported by substantial evidence and was not, therefore, an abuse of discre- tion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rose v. Hudson, No. 99-CV-0054 (W.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2000).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.