UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL C.A. MCPHERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARYLAND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COUNCIL

67, American Federation of State,

County and Municipal Employees,

AFL-CIO; GLENARD S. MIDDLETON,

Executive Director of Council 67 of

the American Federation of State,

County and Municipal Employees,

AFL-CIO; DARLENE STROCK, President

and Board Member of Council 67 of

the American Federation of State,

County, and Municipal Employees,

AFL-CIO; MARVIN REDDING, Vice

No. 96-2782

President and Board Member of

Council 67 of the American

Federation of State, County, and

Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO;

WILLIAM NEAL, Secretary and Board

Member of Council 67 of the

American Federation of State, County,

and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO;

PEGGY STROCK, Treasurer and Board

Member of Council 67 of the

American Federation of State, County,

and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO;

BRUCE ALLEN, Board Member of

Council 67 of the American

Federation of State, County, and

Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO;
DORIS BRIGHTFUL, Board Member of

Council 67 of the American

Federation of State, County, and

Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO;

JEROME DAMON, Board Member of

Council 67 of the American

Federation of State, County, and

Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO;

MICHAEL PYLES, Board Member of

Council 67 of the American

Federation of State, County, and

Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO;

CHARLES WINTZ, Board Member of

Council 67 of the American

Federation of State, County, and

Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.

(CA-96-1867-K)

Argued: June 6, 1997

Decided: July 16, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: James Earl McCollum, Jr., College Park, Maryland, for

Appellant. Sarah Pazourek Harlan, KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS,

 2
P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Joel A.

Smith, KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael C.A. McPherson filed a four-count complaint in federal

court against his former employer, Maryland Public Employees

Council 67 (the Council). He now appeals from the district court's

grant of summary judgment against him on his claim under the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). See 29 U.S.C.A.

§ 1001-1461 (West 1985 & Supp. 1997). He challenges the district

court's conclusion that his claims for severance pay, automobile

allowance, and attorneys' fees are not cognizable under ERISA

because they were not offered pursuant to an "employee welfare benefit plan." See 29 U.S.C.A. § 1002(1)(A) & (B) (West 1985 & Supp.

1997). McPherson also appeals from the district court's refusal to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 1367(a) (West

1994), over his state law claims for breach of contract, promissory

estoppel, and failure to comply with Maryland's Wage Payment and

Collection Law, see Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. § 3-501 to -509

(1991 & Supp. 1996).

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same

standards as applied by the district court. See Roe v. Doe, 28 F.3d

404, 406 (4th Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the record, briefs, and

pertinent case law in this matter, and have had the benefit of oral

argument. Our de novo review persuades us that the district court did

not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Council because

the benefits sought by McPherson were not offered pursuant to an

"employee welfare benefit plan." We also conclude that the district

 3
court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over McPherson's state-law claims. See Shanaghan v.

Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 109 (4th Cir. 1995) (reviewing the district court's

refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning set forth in the district

court's opinion. See McPherson v. Maryland Public Employees Council 67, No. K-96-1867, slip op. (D. Md. Nov. 1, 1996).*

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

*Because ERISA does not apply to this case, we deny the Council's

request for attorneys' fees under 29 U.S.C.A. § 1132(g)(1) (West 1985).

We also decline to exercise our "inherent equity powers," Appellee's Br.

at 20 n.9, to award attorneys' fees in the absence of statutory authorization.

 4