Case Name: Cindy GIBBS, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-29
Citations: 326 F. App'x 533
Docket Number: No. 07-15413
Parties: Cindy GIBBS, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 533–533

Head Matter:
Cindy GIBBS, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
No. 07-15413
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 29, 2009.
Kenneth Lee Cleveland, Cleveland & Cleveland, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant.
Robert E. Thomas, Jr., AT & T Southeast Legal Department, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This is an ERISA case. Cindy Gibbs claims that the third-party administrator of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.'s ERISA plan inappropriately denied her claims for the short term and the long term benefits provided by the plan. The district court disagreed and granted Bell-South summary judgment, on October 19, 2007. Gibbs now appeals.
Gibbs contends that the district court erred in applying the arbitrary and capricious standard of review in concluding that the administrator properly denied her claims for benefits. In her view, the court should have applied the heightened arbitrary and capricious standard. We disagree for the reasons stated in the district court's comprehensive and thoroughgoing memorandum opinion of October 19, 2007, pursuant to which the court granted summary judgment. We find meritless Gibbs's other challenges to the court's judgement, and therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
. The court denied Gibbs's motion to alter or amend judgment on October 29, 2007. We find no error in the court's ruling.