Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03542/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03542-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aetna Incorporated
Appellee
Kevin D. Ahrenholz
Appellee
Ruby Sue Browder
Appellant
The CBE Group Inc. Litigation Center
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3542

___________

Ruby Sue Browder, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

The CBE Group Inc. Litigation Center; *

Kevin D. Ahrenholz; Aetna * [UNPUBLISHED]

Incorporated, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2010

Filed: June 7, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ruby Browder appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

and dismissal for failure to state a claim in her action under the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act (ERISA), the United States Constitution, and state law.

1

The HONORABLE JAMES E. GRITZNER, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the

HONORABLE ROSS A. WALTERS, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

Appellate Case: 09-3542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2010 Entry ID: 3671658
Browder’s complaint alleged that Aetna Incorporated (Aetna), the underwriter

of Browder’s employer health insurance plan, wrongfully failed to provide coverage

for medical bills she incurred at an Iowa hospital, and that the CBE Group (CBE), a

collection agency assigned to Browder’s hospital account, and its attorney Kevin

Ahrenholz, used false documents to obtain a small claims judgment against her. The

district court granted summary judgment for Aetna on res judicata grounds. The

district court then dismissed the claims against CBE and Ahrenholz because they are

not subject to liability under ERISA, and because Browder failed to plead any

constitutional claims against them. Having dismissed any federal claims, the district

court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 

Following careful de novo of the record, see Irving v. Dormire, 586 F.3d 645,

647 (8th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment); Owen v. General Motors Corp., 533 F.3d

913, 918 (8th Cir. 2008) (dismissal), the judgment of the district court is affirmed for

the reasons stated in the district court opinions. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2010 Entry ID: 3671658