# Gregory Kane v. UPS Pension Plan Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 1, 2014

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2738876

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 1, 2014
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2738876

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1032

GREGORY KANE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

UPS PENSION PLAN BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-03719-RDB)

Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: October 1, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Denise M. Clark, CLARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. J. Timothy McDonald, THOMPSON HINE LLP, Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Gregory Kane appeals from the district court’s orders

granting summary judgment to Appellee and denying Kane’s motion

to reinstate a claim. We have reviewed the briefs of the

parties and the record, and we find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Kane v. UPS Pension Plan, No. 1:11-cv-03719-RDB (D. Md.

Oct. 23 & Dec. 11, 2013). In addition, we note that Kane raised

certain claims regarding his motion to reinstate for the first

time in his reply brief. We find these claims waived. Equal

Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 604 n.4 (4th

Cir. 2010) (holding that argument not raised in opening brief is

waived). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2738876. Public record. Not legal advice.