Bourgeois v. Pension Plan Empl, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 11, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-20283
Summary Calendar
J. MICHAEL BOURGEOIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PENSION PLAN FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF SANTA FE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATIONS; SANTA FE INVESTMENT SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING
PLAN; GLOBALSANTAFE CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CV-1316
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
J. Michael Bourgeois appeals the grant of summary judgment in
favor of the defendants, the Pension Plan for the Employees of
Santa Fe International Corporations, Santa Fe Investment Savings
and Profit Sharing Plan, and GlobalSantaFe Corporation in his
Employee Retirement Income Security Act action challenging the
pension plans’ committee’s denial of his request for enhanced
benefits. Bourgeois argues that there was no valid administrative

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 04-20283
-2-
record before the district court. Bourgeois does not identify any
document that should have been but was not included in or excluded
from the administrative record, and he makes no argument how this
allegedly inaccurate or incomplete administrative record makes the
district court’s grant of summary judgment error. Consequently,
this issue is without merit. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Bourgeois argues that no document was submitted to the
district court that met the requirement that the committee’s action
be set forth in writing and signed by a majority of the members.
Because Bourgeois states that this contention is not part of his
appeal, we do not consider this issue.
Bourgeois argues that the district court erred in considering
only the claim relating to the period beginning in 1989 and not
considering his claim that he was due benefits for 1974 to 1989 as
well. However, the district court’s decision makes clear that it
considered Bourgeois’s claims from 1974 forward, and this issue is,
therefore, without merit.
Finally, Bourgeois argues that the denial of discovery by the
district court was an abuse of discretion because, since the
pension plans were self-administered, there was a real conflict of
interest that could not be fully established without discovery.
Bourgeois did not give the district court any reason why additional
discovery would create a genuine issue of material fact. See FED.
R. CIV. P. 56(f); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 04-20283
-3-
242, 248 (1986). Consequently, the district court’s denial of
discovery was not an abuse of discretion. See Moore v. Willis
Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th Cir. 2000). The judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --