Court Opinion

ID: 1016160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:44:47.138895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:38.023430
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
 

  Dr. Elizabeth Frothingham appeals the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment in her civil action in which she alleged constitutional violations and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act in the denial of her claim for benefits under a military pension survivor benefit annuity. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
   
   *936
   
  court.
  
   See Frothingham v. Rumsfeld,
  
  No. CA-04-82-1 (E.D.Va. Nov. 18, 2004). We also deny Frothingham’s motion for oral argument. 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