
    Mae Ann GILBERT, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Richard P. Kelly, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LaSALLE BANK CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-0451-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 16, 2010.
    
      Mae Ann Gilbert, Forest Hills, NY, pro se.
    Lyle Stewart Zuckerman, Vedder Price P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant-Ap-pellee LaSalle Bank Corporation.
    Patrick W. Begos, Begos Horgan & Brown, Westport, CT, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Unum Provident Life Insurance Company.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, B.D. PARKER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff, Mae Ann Gilbert, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kaplan, ./.). Gilbert asserted claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against Unum Provident Life Insurance Company, LaSalle Bank Corporation, and various employees of each. Her claims against Unum were dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and her claims against LaSalle on summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the case’s procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). We review orders granting summary judgment de novo as well, examining whether “the moving party show[ed] that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003).

After de novo review, we conclude for substantially the same reasons as the district court (which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation) that Gilbert did not demonstrate that Unum failed to fulfill its fiduciary duty. The duty to notify Richard Kelly of his life insurance conversion rights did not fall on Unum. We further conclude, for substantially the same reasons as the district court (which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation), that LaSalle fulfilled its obligation under the summary plan description to notify Kelly of his conversion rights. See Howard v. Gleason Corp., 901 F.2d 1154, 1159-61 (2d Cir.1990) (holding that a correct statement of the beneficiary’s rights, consistent with the summary plan description, satisfied the fiduciary’s disclosure obligations).

Finding no merit in Gilbert’s remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.  