Case Name: Carolyn B. HIDY, Appellant, v. TIAA GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS INSURANCE POLICY, an employee benefit plan; Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, Claims Administrator of Ltd Plan; Buckman and Van Buren, Plan Administrator of Ltd Plan
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-12
Citations: 57 F. App'x 124
Docket Number: No. 02-2140
Parties: Carolyn B. HIDY, Appellant, v. TIAA GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS INSURANCE POLICY, an employee benefit plan; Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, Claims Administrator of Ltd Plan; Buckman and Van Buren, Plan Administrator of Ltd Plan.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 57
Pages: 124–124

Head Matter:
Carolyn B. HIDY, Appellant, v. TIAA GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS INSURANCE POLICY, an employee benefit plan; Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, Claims Administrator of Ltd Plan; Buckman and Van Buren, Plan Administrator of Ltd Plan.
No. 02-2140.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Feb. 11, 2003.
Decided Feb. 12, 2003.
Before ALITO and MCKEE, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
Honorable William W. Schwarzer, Senior District Judge, Northern District of California sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
MCKEE, Circuit Judge.
Carolyn Hidy appeals from the district court's decision that her action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), in which she alleged that she was improperly denied long term disability benefits, was time-barred in light of our holding in Syed v. Hercules Inc., 214 F.3d 155 (3d Cir.2000).
Inasmuch as we write only for the parties, it is not necessary to recite the factual or procedural background of this case. Moreover, in its Memorandum Opinion, the district court carefully and completely explained its reasons for finding that Hidy's claim is time-barred. Hidy v. TIAA Group Long Term Disability Benefits Ins. Policy, 2002 WL 450084 (D.Del. March 19, 2002). We can add nothing to the district court's thoughtful analysis, and we will not attempt to gild the lily by engaging in a redundant discussion simply to reach the same result.
Accordingly, we will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion without further elaboration.