Case Name: Nora GLUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION LONG-TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-17
Citations: 548 F. App'x 73
Docket Number: No. 12-2437
Parties: Nora GLUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION LONGTERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 73–74

Head Matter:
Nora GLUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION LONGTERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-2437.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 2, 2013.
Decided: Dec. 17, 2013.
Benjamin W. Glass, III, Benjamin W. Glass, III & Associates, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. E. Ford Stephens, Christian & Barton, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nora Gluth (Gluth) brought this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., challenging the termination of her long-term disability benefits under the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Long-Term Disability Plan (the Plan). On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court, applying a de novo standard of review, granted summary-judgment in favor of the Plan. In the present appeal, Gluth challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plan.
Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the district court's memorandum opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gluth v. The Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. Long-Term Disability Plan, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-1126, 2013 WL 246897 (E.D.Va. Jan. 17, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.