Stephenson v. Holland , 8 F. App'x 159 ( 2001 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1933
LESTER A. STEPHENSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL H. HOLLAND; DONALD E. PIERCE, JR.;
ELLIOT A. SEGAL; JOSEPH J. STAHL, III, As
Trustee of the UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
1974 PENSION PLAN AND TRUST,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-675-2)
Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: March 13, 2001
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert B. Wilson, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Glenda
S. Finch, Deputy General Counsel, Christopher F. Clarke, Assistant
General Counsel, UMWA HEALTH & RETIREMENT FUNDS, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lester A. Stephenson appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his action in which he sought clarification of the
Defendants’ interpretation of provisions of his pension plan. The
district court dismissed the complaint after determining that
Stephenson lacked standing to bring such action. Because Stephen-
son does not challenge the basis for the district court’s order,
our review is for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 732 (1993). Even if Stephenson could establish the first two
Olano prongs—that the district court’s determination was erroneous
and that such error was plain, he cannot demonstrate the third
element of the plain error analysis because his substantive claim
fails on the merits. See Gallo v. Amoco Corp., 102 F.3d 918, 922
(7th Cir. 1996) (plan administrators are not required to provide
the “reasoning behind the reasons”). Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s dismissal of this action. 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
2