* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-31302

Summary Calendar

ALAYNE R. WATSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SPECIAL AGENTS MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC.,

(SAMBA); AMEX LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Louisiana

(97-CV-101-B-M3)

June 4, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

BACKGROUND

From 1971 until October 1991, James M. (Mike) Wats on was

employed by the Federal Bureau of In vestigation, Department of2

J u stice of the United States ("FBI"). As a result of this

e mployment Mike Watson was enrolled in various group insurance

plans provided by Special Agents Mutual Benefit Association, Inc.

("SAMBA"). One of these plans was a group life insurance coverage

issued by AMEX Life Assurance Company ("AMEX"). All of the plans

provided by SAMBA to its membership are part of one employee

welfare benefit plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). These plans are administered

and maintained by the SAMBA Board of Directors. In October 1991,

Mike Watson was sent into mandatory retirement for health reasons

by the FBI. On October 23, 1991, Mike Watson was divorced from his

wife, Alayne R. Watson. In February 1992, SAMBA received a letter

on stationery of James M. Watson. This letter, which was unsigned

but had the name James M. Watson typed at the bottom, states in

part:

I RECENTLY DIVORCED AND I WIS H TO CANCEL ALL

INSURANCE ON MY SPOUSE AND CONTINUE INSURANCE ONLY

ON MYSELF FOR $25,000 AND MY MINOR CHILD, MERI

WATSON AT $2000. I ALSO WISH TO CHANGE MY

BENEFICIARY TO GERALD C. WATSON, 1801 MIDPINES

COURT, ARLINGTON, TX.

PLEASE SEND ME ANY NECESSARY FORMS FOR THE

ABOVE CHANGES.

In April 1992, SAMBA received another letter which was signed and

states:

I RE CEIVED NO CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY FORM IN

REF. LETT E R AND WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE MY

BENEFICIARY. PLEASE FORWARD.

After receipt of these two letters, SAMBA changed the beneficiary3

on Mike Watson’s group term life insurance policy No. E105-931 from

Alayne Watson (his former wife) to Gerald C. Watson (his brother).

Mike Watson died on February 8, 1993, as a result of liver failure.

On March 3, 1993, Gerald Watson provided SAMBA with proof of loss

in the form of a death certificate for Mike Watson and a written

claim for benefits as the beneficiary of Mike Watson’s life

insurance coverage with the plan. AMEX paid the proceeds of Mike

Watson’s life insurance coverage to Gerald Watson on March 25,

1993. On November 22, 1993, Alayne Watson called AMEX and asserted

her belief that Gerald Watson "may have forged her name" in order

to obtain the proceeds of Mike Watson’s life insurance. Alayne

Watson did no t, however, tender any evidence to AMEX or SAMBA in

support of this assertion. In February 1995, more than two years

after Mike Watson’s death, Alayne Watson filed a written claim that

she was entitled to life insurance benefits as the original

beneficiary under her ex-husband’s policy.

In February 1996, Alayne Watson sued AMEX and SAMBA in

Louisiana state court, but neither defendant was notified of this

action until January 1997. In her complaint, Alayne Watson seeks

"civil enforcement of the benefits due her under the provisions of

ERISA and the terms of the group life insurance policy on her exhusband Mike Watson." Alayne Watson specifically alleges that

SAMBA and AMEX wrongfully denied her benefits under her exhusband’s coverage by removing her as the beneficiary of her exhusband’s coverage in response to the two letters which the plan4

received from Mr. Watson prior to his death in February 1993. In

February 1997, AMEX and SAMBA removed this action to the federal

D istrict Court for the Middle District of Louisiana and af ter

discovery, moved for summary judgment. On November 3, 1997, the

U nited States District Court granted the motion for summary

judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the summary judgment record. For the reasons

stated by the District Court in its Ruling on Defendant’s Motion

for Summary Judgment filed under date of November 3, 1997, we

believe the Final Judgment entered on the same date should be, and

is hereby, AFFIRMED.