UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH H. COBB, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; RICHARD KNOWLES; ELBERT PRICE; LESTER GORE; SCOTT RENDINELL; LOU No. 98-1642 P. MICELI, Defendants-Appellees, and PAMELA POKRZYWA; REUBEN W. HOLLAND, M.D.; ROBERT L. LEADBETTER, M.D., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-743-2) Submitted: July 7, 1998 Decided: August 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________COUNSELDeborah H. Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. David Besserer Thomas, SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia; Larry Andrew Winter, David Dale Johnson, III, CAREY, HILL,SCOTT, WINTER & JOHNSON, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Deborah H. Cobb appeals from the district court judgment dismissing her action against her former employer, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. ("DuPont"), and eight of its employees. Cobb commenced theaction in state court and alleged handicap discrimination, gender discrimination, sexual harassment, fraudulent con cealment, intentional infliction of emotional harm, all in violation of West Virginia law, and a violation of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001 - 1461 (West 1985 & Supp. 1998) ("ERISA"). The Defendants removed the complaint to federal districtcourt on the basis of Cobb's ERISA claim. On appeal, Cobb challenges the court's jurisdiction and the dismissal of her handicap discrimination, fraudulent con cealment, sexual harassment and ERISAclaims on the basis of allegedly improper court orders limiting discovery or prohibiting evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.Cobb's contention that the court was without subject matter jurisdiction is frivolous. Cobb's complaint plainly stated a claim under ERISA. In response to the notice of removal, Cobb conceded that her ERISA claim was within the jurisdiction of the court. See29 U.S.C.A. § 1132(e)(1) (West 1985 & Supp. 1998). Removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (1994), b ecause the district court has jurisdiction
2over civil actions arising under the laws of the United States without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Furthermore, her remaining state claims were properly considered by the court. See § 1441(c).Cobb's challenges to the court's dismissal of her handicap discrimination, fraudulent con cealment and sexual harassment claims on the basis of limitations placed on her ability to c onduct discovery andsubmit evidence are without merit. The district court has broad discretion concerning the admissibility of testimony and the scope of discovery. See Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg , 81 F.3d 416, 426 (4th Cir. 1996); Bristol Steel & Iron Works v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. , 41 F.3d 182, 188 (4th Cir. 1994). Finally, the court did not err in excluding medical evidence outside the administrative record in deciding the ERISA claim. See Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hosp., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co. , 32 F.3d 120, 125 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3