Case Name: Lester A. STEPHENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael H. HOLLAND; Donald E. Pierce, Jr.; Elliot A. Segal; Joseph J. Stahl, III, As Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan and Trust, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-13
Citations: 8 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 00-1933
Parties: Lester A. STEPHENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael H. HOLLAND; Donald E. Pierce, Jr.; Elliot A. Segal; Joseph J. Stahl, III, As Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan and Trust, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 8
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
Lester A. STEPHENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael H. HOLLAND; Donald E. Pierce, Jr.; Elliot A. Segal; Joseph J. Stahl, III, As Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan and Trust, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-1933.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 31, 2001.
Decided March 13, 2001.
Robert B. Wilson, Charleston, WV, for appellant. Glenda S. Finch, Deputy General Counsel, Christopher F. Clarke, Assistant General Counsel, UMWA Health & Retirement Funds, Washington, DC, for appellees.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lester A. Stephenson appeals from the district court's order dismissing his action in which he sought clarification of the Defendants' interpretation of provisions of his pension plan. The district court dismissed the complaint after determining that Stephenson lacked standing to bring such action. Because Stephenson does not challenge the basis for the district court's order, our review is for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Even if Stephenson could establish the first two Olano prongs — that the district court's determination was erroneous and that such error was plain, he cannot demonstrate the third element of the plain error analysis because his substantive claim fails on the merits. See Gallo v. Amoco Corp., 102 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir.1996) (plan administrators are not required to provide the "reasoning behind the reasons"). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of this action. 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.