Case Name: Sheryl LOUDEN, Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-07
Citations: 283 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 07-1607
Parties: Sheryl LOUDEN, Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee.
Judges: Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 415–415

Head Matter:
Sheryl LOUDEN, Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee.
No. 07-1607.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 6, 2008.
Filed: July 7, 2008.
David O.N. Johnson, Meyer & Puklich, Eden Prairie, MN, for Appellant.
John Harper III, Terrance J. Wagener, Krass & ' Monroe, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.
Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sheryl Louden appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in her Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit against UNUM Life Insurance Company of America (UNUM) arising from the termination of long term disability benefits. Her sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred in applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review. We find nothing improper in the way the district court conducted its review. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2843, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008) (clarifying judicial standard of review where entity is both insurer and administrator of ERISA benefits plan, and plan gives discretionary authority to administrator to determine eligibility for benefits); Torres v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 405 F.3d 670, 677 (8th Cir.2005) (reviewing de novo district court's determination as to proper judicial standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.