Case Name: Stephen SIMON, individually and as ultimate assignee of Humanistic Mental Health foundation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GROUP INSURANCE PLAN FOR AEROSPACE EMPLOYEES OF MARTIN MARIETTA, a/k/a Group Benefits Program for Salaried Employees of Martin Marietta Corporation; Martin Marietta Corporation, as Plan Administrator, Defendants-Appellees, and Eva Carlson, individually and as fiduciary; John Rust, individually and as fiduciary; Tom Kinstle, individually and as fiduciary, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-27
Citations: 16 F. App'x 139
Docket Number: No. 01-1121
Parties: Stephen SIMON, individually and as ultimate assignee of Humanistic Mental Health foundation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GROUP INSURANCE PLAN FOR AEROSPACE EMPLOYEES OF MARTIN MARIETTA, a/k/a Group Benefits Program for Salaried Em ployees of Martin Marietta Corporation; Martin Marietta Corporation, as Plan Administrator, Defendants-Appellees, and Eva Carlson, individually and as fiduciary; John Rust, individually and as fiduciary; Tom Kinstle, individually and as fiduciary, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 16
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
Stephen SIMON, individually and as ultimate assignee of Humanistic Mental Health foundation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GROUP INSURANCE PLAN FOR AEROSPACE EMPLOYEES OF MARTIN MARIETTA, a/k/a Group Benefits Program for Salaried Em ployees of Martin Marietta Corporation; Martin Marietta Corporation, as Plan Administrator, Defendants-Appellees, and Eva Carlson, individually and as fiduciary; John Rust, individually and as fiduciary; Tom Kinstle, individually and as fiduciary, Defendants.
No. 01-1121.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 10, 2001.
Decided July 27, 2001.
Stephen Simon, pro se. J. Eric Paltell, Lynn A. Clements, Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe, L.L.P., Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Stephen Simon appeals the district court's order dismissing his Rule 12(b)(6) claim. 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 Simon v. Group Ins. Plan, No. CA-99-3463-PJM (D.Md. Dec. 20, 2000). No member of this court requested that a poll be taken with respect to Simon's Suggestion For Hearing En Banc. Accordingly, we deny that petition. 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.