Case Name: Jerry A. CHANDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael H. HOLLAND, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America; Marty Hudson, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America; B.V. Hyler, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America; Joseph Brenman, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-17
Citations: 32 F. App'x 692
Docket Number: No. 02-1022
Parties: Jerry A. CHANDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael H. HOLLAND, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America; Marty Hudson, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America; B.V. Hyler, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America; Joseph Brenman, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 692–692

Head Matter:
Jerry A. CHANDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael H. HOLLAND, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America; Marty Hudson, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America; B.V. Hyler, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America; Joseph Brenman, Trustee of the 1974 Pension Plan United Mine Workers of America, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-1022.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2002.
Decided April 17, 2002.
Jerry A. Chandler, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Mims, UMWA Health & Retirement Funds, Washington, D.C.; Charlie Richard Jessee, Jessee & Read, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jerry A. Chandler appeals the district court's judgment granting summary judgment to the Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan on his claims for disability pension benefits under the provisions of the Plan. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Chandler v. Holland, No. CA-00-142-2 (W.D.Va. Dec. 3, 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.