Case ID: f-appx_59/html/0601-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford E. McDonald, Jr., Intervenor/Defendant-Appellant, and Michael C. Kelly, Defendant.
    No. 02-2062.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2003.
    Decided March 25, 2003.
    Irwin E. Weiss, Baltimore, Maryland; Jerome J. Seidenman, Jerome J. Seidenman, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. William C. Parler, Jr., Parler & Wobber, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Clifford McDonald appeals the district court’s order entering a declaratory judgment in favor of Mutual Benefit Insurance Co. on its claim that Michael Kelly was a non-permissive user of a vehicle owned by Multi-Complex Contractors that Kelly was driving during a motor vehicle accident on June 24, 2000. McDonald also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment and for a new trial. We affirm.

We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo, and its findings of facts for clear error. Minyard Enter., Inc. v. Southeastern Chem. & Solvent Co., 184 F.3d 373, 380 (4th Cir.1999); Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the supplemental joint appendix and conclude the district court properly entered judgment in favor of Mutual Benefit because Kelly was operating the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Multi-Complex policy and therefore was a non-permissive user of the vehicle. See Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Bullock, 68 Md.App. 20, 509 A.2d 1217, 1225 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1986). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. McDonald, No. CA-01-1129-L (D. Md. July 12, 2002 & Sept. 4, 2002). 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.