
    Michael THORNESBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendant-Appellees.
    No. 05-3137.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Dec. 1, 2005.
    Steven Michael Willard, Bannon, How-land & Dever, Portsmouth, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Eliott R. Good, Michael W. Dewitt, Chorpenning, Good & Pandora, Columbus, OH, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before MERRITT, MARTIN, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIUM.

Appellant Michael Thornesberry appeals the district court’s grant of judgment on the administrative record to Appellee Aetna Life Insurance Company.

On January 14, 2002, Thornesberry had to stop working for medical reasons. She became eligible for long-term disability benefits through Aetna on September 2, 2002. After initially providing Thornesberry with benefits, Aetna determined that Thornesberry was not disabled and refused to provide her with further benefits.

Thornesberry initially filed suit in Scioto County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, asserting various ERISA and state law claims against Aetna and her employer, Duke Energy, to recover disability benefits. Aetna and Duke removed the case to federal court. In the district court, Aetna moved to dismiss the case and for judgment on the administrative record. Duke sought summary judgment. Thornesberry moved for judgment on the administrative record. The district court granted Aetna’s motions and Duke’s motion for summary judgment, and denied Thornesberry’s motion. Thornesberry only appeals the district court’s grant of Aetna’s motions and its denial of her motion.

After a careful review of the record, applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting Aetna’s motions and denying Thornesberry’s motion. The record demonstrates that Aetna did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying benefits to Thornesberry. As the district court accurately described the evidence and applied the correct legal principles to the facts of this case, no useful purpose would be served by issuing a full opinion. We thus AFFIRM the district court’s judgments in favor of Aetna and against Thornesberry on the basis of its well-reasoned opinion.  