Court Opinion

ID: 995879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:43:09.454382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:57.501937
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DEBORAH H. COBB,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
RICHARD KNOWLES; ELBERT PRICE;
LESTER GORE; SCOTT RENDINELL; LOU
                                                               No. 98-1642
P. MICELI,
Defendants-Appellees,

and

PAMELA POKRZYWA; REUBEN W.
HOLLAND, M.D.; ROBERT L.
LEADBETTER, M.D.,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-95-743-2)

Submitted: July 7, 1998

Decided: August 4, 1998

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Deborah H. Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. David Besserer Thomas, SPIL-
MAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia;
Larry Andrew Winter, David Dale Johnson, III, CAREY, HILL,
SCOTT, WINTER & JOHNSON, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Deborah H. Cobb appeals from the district court judgment dismiss-
ing her action against her former employer, E.I. DuPont de Nemours
& Co. ("DuPont"), and eight of its employees. Cobb commenced the
action in state court and alleged handicap discrimination, gender dis-
crimination, sexual harassment, fraudulent concealment, intentional
infliction of emotional harm, all in violation of West Virginia law,
and a violation of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001 - 1461 (West 1985 & Supp. 1998)
("ERISA"). The Defendants removed the complaint to federal district
court on the basis of Cobb's ERISA claim. On appeal, Cobb chal-
lenges the court's jurisdiction and the dismissal of her handicap dis-
crimination, fraudulent concealment, sexual harassment and ERISA
claims on the basis of allegedly improper court orders limiting discov-
ery or prohibiting evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Cobb's contention that the court was without subject matter juris-
diction is frivolous. Cobb's complaint plainly stated a claim under
ERISA. In response to the notice of removal, Cobb conceded that her
ERISA claim was within the jurisdiction of the court. See 29 U.S.C.A.
§ 1132(e)(1) (West 1985 & Supp. 1998). Removal was proper under
28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (1994), because the district court has jurisdiction

                    2
over civil actions arising under the laws of the United States without
regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Furthermore, her
remaining state claims were properly considered by the court. See
§ 1441(c).

Cobb's challenges to the court's dismissal of her handicap discrim-
ination, fraudulent concealment and sexual harassment claims on the
basis of limitations placed on her ability to conduct discovery and
submit evidence are without merit. The district court has broad discre-
tion concerning the admissibility of testimony and the scope of dis-
covery. See Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 426 (4th Cir.
1996); Bristol Steel & Iron Works v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 41 F.3d
182, 188 (4th Cir. 1994). Finally, the court did not err in excluding
medical evidence outside the administrative record in deciding the
ERISA claim. See Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hosp., Inc. v. Travelers
Ins. Co., 32 F.3d 120, 125 (4th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3