Case Name: Paul V. COTTRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-08
Citations: 32 F. App'x 88
Docket Number: No. 01-2323
Parties: Paul V. COTTRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 88–88

Head Matter:
Paul V. COTTRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-2323.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 25, 2002.
Decided April 8, 2002.
Patrick L. Cottrell, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Anne Gordon Greever, Barry T. Meek, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Paul V. Cottrell appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSX") on his claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001-1461 (West 1999 & Supp.2001). Cottrell argues he is entitled to thirteen years of pension benefits for the period between 1963 and 1976 under the terms of an employee pension plan in effect during his employment with CSX and its predecessor, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company.
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards employed by the district court. Ellis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 228, 232 (4th Cir.1997). The denial of benefits under ERISA is reviewed de novo unless the plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to construe the terms of the plan or to determine whether a participant is eligible for benefits. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). If the plan confers discretionary authority, the decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the decision will not be disturbed if it is reasonable. Booth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Assocs. Health & Welfare Plan, 201 F.3d 335, 341-42 (4th Cir. 2000).
We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the joint appendix and the district court's order. We conclude the Plan's administrators did not err when they determined Cottrell had not met the requirements for membership in the Plan during the year 1963 and therefore affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cottrell v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. CA-00-770-2 (S.D.W.Va. Oct. 19, 2001). 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.