From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Teplick v. Boeing Co. Employee Health and Welfare Benefit Plan

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 2, 2005
156 F. App'x 917 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Argued and Submitted November 16, 2005.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

James S. Coon, Esq., Swanson, Thomas & Coon, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Bruce C. Hamlin, Thomas W. Sondag, Esq., [Ret] William T. Patton, Esq., Lane Powell, P.C., Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-00264-AS.

Before: KLEINFELD and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ, District Judge.

The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Teplick never moved to supplement the record to provide evidence rebutting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Before this Court, Teplick admitted that he did not have any additional evidence to submit. Because he failed to attempt to provide additional evidence to the district court, Teplick has waived any claim of prejudice regarding the development of the facts or scope of review.

Cf. Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Benefit Plan, 46 F.3d 938, 943-944 (9th Cir.1995).

Teplick did not establish that his disability made him unable to perform his old job or any other job.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Teplick v. Boeing Co. Employee Health and Welfare Benefit Plan

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 2, 2005
156 F. App'x 917 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

Teplick v. Boeing Co. Employee Health and Welfare Benefit Plan

Case Details

Full title:Richard TEPLICK, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. THE BOEING COMPANY EMPLOYEE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 2, 2005

Citations

156 F. App'x 917 (9th Cir. 2005)

Citing Cases

U.S. Mortg. v. Saxton

The dismissal of the Nevada lawsuit was the subject of a separate appeal to this court.In re Saxton, Inc.…

In re Synchronoss Techs.. Sec. Litig.

In that regard, allegations of scienter based on GAAP violations do not create the requisite inference of…