Eric L. Jeffries v. Prudential Insurance Company of America

*The Honorable Paul V. Gadola, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by
designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0651n.06
Filed: August 3, 2005
Case No. 04-3701
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ERIC L. JEFFRIES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
BEFORE: BATCHELDER and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; GADOLA*, District Judge.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Eric Jeffries appeals the
district court’s order granting summary judgment to Prudential Insurance Co. on his claims brought
pursuant to The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.
(“ERISA”). Jeffries claims first that the district court erred in holding that Prudential, the
administrator of the ERISA plan in which Jeffries is a participant, may not be required to pay
Jeffries’s attorney’s fees attributable to the administrative proceedings that eventually resulted in
his receiving benefits for his total disability. Jeffries further assigns as error the district court’s
granting summary judgment to Prudential on Jeffries’s claim that he is entitled to a declaration of
his right to future benefits because he is permanently disabled.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
After carefully reviewing the thorough Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge
and the order of the district court adopting it, the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs and
counsels’ arguments, we are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. As the
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation carefully and correctly sets out the law governing
the issues raised, and clearly articulates its reasoning, issuance of a full written opinion by this court
would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, we
AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

-- 2 of 2 --