Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0754-01.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

Elizabeth JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GRANT THORNTON LLP, Grant Thornton LLP Health and Welfare Benefits Plan, et al. Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-15695
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Date Filed: 07/11/2016
    Elizabeth Jenkins, Pro Se
    Jonathan G. Rose, Alston & Bird, LLP, Washington, DC, Scott G. Hawkins, Jones Foster Johnston & Stubbs, PA, West Palm Beach, FL, Elizabeth Wilson Vaughan, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and WOOD  District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood, United States District Chief Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Elizabeth Jenkins appeals the district court’s partial grant of a motion to dismiss and entry of summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees Grant Thornton LLP (GT); Grant Thornton LLP Health and Welfare Benefits Plan (the Health Plan); and Grant Thornton LLP Employees’ Retirement Plan (the Pension Plan). Jenkins, proceeding pro se, filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., to recover long-term disability benefits she believes are due to her under the Health Plan, retirement benefits she believes are due to her under the Pension Plan, and document penalties for GT’s alleged failure to provide her with the plan documents she requested. Additionally, Jenkins seeks equitable relief on behalf of the Health Plan for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On appeal, Jenkins argues that the district court: (1) erred in dismissing several counts of her amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) abused its discretion in denying her motion to quash certain subpoenas and in issuing discovery sanctions against her; and (3) erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summaiy judgment.

After reviewing the record and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude the district court did not commit reversible error as to any issue.

AFFIRMED.