Nora Gluth v. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, No. 12-2437 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2437 NORA GLUTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE FEDERAL HOME DISABILITY PLAN, LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION LONG-TERM Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-01126-CMH-IDD) Submitted: August 2, 2013 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and December 17, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin W. Glass, III, BENJAMIN W. GLASS, III & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. E. Ford Stephens, CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nora Employee Gluth (Gluth) Retirement brought Income this Security action Act of pursuant 1974, to 29 the U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., challenging the termination of her long-term disability benefits under Corporation Long-Term the Federal Disability Plan Home (the Loan Mortgage Plan). On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court, applying a de novo standard of review, granted summary judgment in favor of the Plan. In the present appeal, Gluth challenges the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plan. Having reviewed the parties submissions, the district court s memorandum opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gluth v. The Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. Long-Term Disability Plan, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-1126, dispense with 2013 WL oral 246897 argument (E.D. Va. because Jan. the 17, 2013). facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.