Case Name: Roger WOODS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCO LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN; Atlantic Richfield Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-24
Citations: 23 F. App'x 993
Docket Number: No. 01-8009
Parties: Roger WOODS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCO LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN; Atlantic Richfield Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 23
Pages: 993–993

Head Matter:
Roger WOODS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCO LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN; Atlantic Richfield Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-8009.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 24, 2002.
Before EBEL, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Injured in a workplace accident, plaintiff Roger Woods sought and obtained permanent disability benefits under a benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U .S.C. § 1001-1461. As a result of a routine review of his file, the plan administrator terminated his benefits, finding that his injury did not prevent him from securing what the terms of the plan define as "gainful employment."
After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, Woods filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the termination of his benefits violated ERISA. The district court granted summary judgment against him. He appeals.
The parties are familiar with the additional facts comprising and framing this dispute, so we need not repeat them here. Having carefully reviewed the parties' briefs, the record on appeal, as well as the law governing this ERISA claim, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's order dated November 30, 2000.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.