CourtListener opinion 11216613

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 16

 PUBLISHED

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 24-1959

 DAVID GASPER,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

 v.

 EIDP, INC., f/k/a E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company; CORTEVA INC.; THE
 PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN; THE BENEFIT PLANS
 ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,

 Defendants – Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
 Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge.

 Argued: September 10, 2025 Decided: December 8, 2025

 Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

 Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge Keenan wrote the opinion, in which Judge
 Benjamin and Judge Berner joined.

 ARGUED: Bryan Lee Tyson, MARCELLINO & TYSON, PLLC, Charlotte, North
 Carolina, for Appellant. Todd David Wozniak, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, Atlanta,
 Georgia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Hannah Auckland, MARCELLINO & TYSON,
 PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Nishma Patel, HOLLAND & KNIGHT
 LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 2 of 16

 BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge:

 David Gasper filed the present action under the Employee Retirement Income

 Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1024, 1132, against his former employer and

 retirement plan administrator. Gasper primarily asserts that his monthly annuity payment

 improperly was reduced by $385.26 to cover the cost of the "qualified joint survivor

 annuity" (the surviving spouse annuity), 1 which provides his former spouse with reduced

 monthly payments upon Gasper's death. According to Gasper, the "qualified domestic

 relations order" (QDRO) entered after his divorce required that any "cost" of the surviving

 spouse annuity be deducted from his former spouse's portion of the plan benefit and should

 not result in a reduction to his portion of the benefit. Gasper also seeks "statutory penalties"

 based on the plan administrator's purported failure to provide Gasper with certain plan

 documents in a timely manner. The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of

 the defendants, and Gasper now appeals.

 We conclude that the district court properly applied a de novo standard to review

 the plan administrator's interpretation of the QDRO, and that the court correctly upheld

 that interpretation under North Carolina law. The plain language of the QDRO permitted,

 but did not require, that any cost of the surviving spouse annuity be deducted from Gasper's

 1
 A surviving spouse annuity, referred to in ERISA as a "QJSA," is the primary
 mechanism to provide survivor benefits to retiring participants, which is required under
 ERISA. Dorn v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 211 F.3d 938, 942-43 (5th Cir. 2000). A
 QJSA includes two benefits: (1) an annuity for the life of the participant, and (2) a survivor
 annuity for the life of the surviving spouse not less than 50% of the participant's annuity.
 Id. at 943. ERISA permits former spouses of plan participants to be deemed surviving
 spouses. See id. at 943 n.5; 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(F)(i).
 2
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 3 of 16

 former spouse's portion of the retirement benefit. Further, we hold that the district court

 did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plan administrator properly calculated

 Gasper's monthly annuity payment, which included an actuarial adjustment for the

 surviving spouse annuity that reduced the benefit as a whole. Finally, we hold that Gasper

 timely received the plan documents to which he was entitled under ERISA. And even

 assuming, without deciding, that Gasper was entitled to certain historical plan documents

 that were not timely provided, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

 declining to award Gasper allowable statutory penalties. Gasper did not establish that he

 suffered any prejudice from failing to timely receive those documents, nor did he establish

 that the plan administrator acted in bad faith in responding to Gasper's requests for

 documents. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.

 I.

 In December 2010, Gasper and his spouse divorced after 25 years of marriage. In

 their divorce proceedings in a North Carolina family court (the state court), Gasper's

 employee retirement plan sponsored by his employer EIDP, Inc. (the plan) was deemed a

 marital asset. The state court entered a domestic relations order (DRO), which adopted an

 agreement between the parties regarding certain marital property rights. See 29 U.S.C.

 § 1056(d)(3)(B)(ii). In the DRO, Gasper was identified as the plan "Participant," 2 and his

 2
 ERISA defines a "participant" as any employee or former employee who is or may
 become eligible to receive a benefit from an employee benefit plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7).
 ERISA defines an "alternate payee" as "any spouse, former spouse, child, or other
 (Continued)
 3
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 4 of 16

 former spouse was identified as the "Alternate Payee." J.A. 634. As set forth in 29 U.S.C.

 § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(1), a DRO "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's

 right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits

 payable with respect to a participant under a plan."

 Under the terms of the DRO, Gasper would receive a monthly annuity payment

 upon retirement for his lifetime, and his former spouse would receive a reduced monthly

 annuity payment during Gasper's lifetime. With regard to the surviving spouse annuity,

 the DRO stated that Gasper's former spouse "shall be treated as a surviving spouse," who

 will receive a reduced monthly annuity payment upon Gasper's death for the duration of

 her life. J.A. 636. And critical to this appeal, the DRO stated that "the Alternate Payee's

 benefit may be reduced as necessary to cover the cost of the [surviving spouse annuity]

 awarded to Alternate Payee." J.A. 636 (emphasis added).

 In April 2013, the plan sponsor appointed Marsha Cauthen-Wilson to review the

 DRO. After conducting her review, Cauthen-Wilson sent to Gasper a "determination

 report," stating that the DRO "meets the requirements for a qualified domestic relations

 order (QDRO)" under ERISA. J.A. 600; see 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(D)(i) (explaining in

 part that a DRO cannot be "qualified" if it requires the plan to provide a type or form of

 benefit that is not provided under the plan). Accordingly, Cauthen-Wilson stated in the

 report that the plan "will distribute benefits to the alternate payee in accordance with the

 order and Plan terms." J.A. 600. Cauthen-Wilson also stated in the report that "[a]t the

 dependent of a participant who is recognized by a [DRO] as having a right to receive . . .
 benefits payable under a plan with respect to such participant." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(K).
 4
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 5 of 16

 participant's benefit commencement date, the total monthly benefit will be reduced to cover

 the cost associated with the [surviving spouse annuity]." J.A. 601 (emphasis added).

 Six years later, in June 2019, Gasper became eligible to receive retirement benefits.

 Prior to receiving benefits, Gasper was required to "sign" and "certify" his benefit choices

 in a "pension election authorization form." J.A. 536-37. On that form, Gasper was

 informed that his monthly benefit would be $3,400.

 After signing and certifying the form, Gasper contacted the plan administrator and

 contended that his monthly benefit should be $3,785.26, not $3,400. According to Gasper,

 this higher figure was required under the terms of the QDRO.

 In response, Gasper received a notice from the plan administrator in October 2019

 about how his benefit was calculated. The plan administrator explained that the only "cost"

 of the surviving spouse annuity is the "actuarial adjustment [made] to convert a benefit

 payable over the participant's lifetime to a benefit payable over the joint lifetimes of both

 the participant and [the] surviving spouse." J.A. 562. The notice further explained that

 "the total benefit was actuarially adjusted to reflect the joint life expectancy requirement

 of the [surviving spouse annuity], and then the portion of the total benefit payable to the

 alternate payee was deducted." Id. Accordingly, the plan administrator stated that "there

 is no actual ‘cost' [of the surviving spouse annuity] that may be assigned to the alternate

 payee, and no optional form that would accomplish that result." Id. Finally, the plan

 administrator stated that because "a QDRO may not require a plan to pay a benefit . . . that

 is not offered under that plan, your court order was qualified disregarding the language

 addressing ‘cost.'" Id.

 5
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 6 of 16

 In January 2020, Gasper appealed this decision to the "benefit determination review

 team," which denied his appeal. In June 2020, Gasper verbally requested from the plan

 administrator the plan documents, including the "summary plan description," that were in

 effect when the DRO was "qualified" in April 2013. In response, the plan administrator

 provided copies of the "current" plan and related documents that were in effect in 2020.

 In July 2020, Gasper filed a second administrative appeal, which the plan

 administrator also denied. In its decision, the plan administrator explained that the QDRO

 "does not state that the Alternate Payee's benefit must be reduced in order to cover the

 [surviving spouse annuity]. Assigning a portion of the cost [i.e., the actuarial adjustment]

 to both you and your Alternate Payee does not conflict with the QDRO." J.A. 560.

 On July 20, 2020, Gasper submitted to the plan administrator his first written request

 for plan documents. The written request acknowledged that Gasper previously had

 received certain plan documents. But Gasper asserted that some of the documents were

 missing certain pages, and that he had not received historical plan documents that were in

 effect in April 2013. In response to the written request, the plan administrator again sent

 to Gasper the plan documents applicable in 2020.

 Upon receipt of these documents, Gasper asserted that certain plan appendices were

 missing and again stated that he was entitled to all historical versions of the plan and

 "summary plan descriptions" for "the entire time period relating to the QDRO

 determination in [April] 2013." J.A. 544. Gasper contended that the plan administrator

 had sent only the July 2013 summary plan description, which was not in effect when the

 6
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 7 of 16

 QDRO qualification decision was made, and that pages were missing from the July 2011

 plan documents.

 In 2023, Gasper filed the present action in federal district court against his employer

 and plan sponsor, EIDP, Inc., and the plan administrator 3 (the defendants). As relevant to

 this appeal, Gasper asserted two claims: (1) wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. §

 1132, and (2) a claim for statutory damages for failure to produce documents as required

 by 29 U.S.C. §§ 1024, 1132. 4 During discovery, the defendants provided Gasper with the

 historical plan documents applicable in April 2013, including the previously omitted pages

 from the 2011 plan and the summary plan description from July 2008.

 The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After reviewing the record,

 the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The district court

 held that: (1) applying a de novo standard of review, the plan administrator correctly

 interpreted the QDRO and did not abuse her discretion in denying Gasper's claim that he

 3
 The named plan administrator is The Benefit Plans Administrative Committee.
 Gasper also named Corteva, Inc. as a defendant, which has "assumed responsibility for the
 plan;" EIDP, Inc. continues to be the plan sponsor.
 4
 Gasper also asserted a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) for other relief based
 on a breach of fiduciary duty, but that claim was dismissed and is not at issue in this appeal.
 Gasper also sought attorneys' fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), which the district court
 denied. Based on our conclusion set forth in this opinion that the district court properly
 award summary judgment in favor of the defendants, there was no basis on which to award
 Gasper attorneys' fees. See Williams v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 622, 633-34 (4th
 Cir. 2010) (explaining that in an ERISA case, a district court may in its discretion award
 reasonable attorneys' fees under Section 1132(g)(1) if the party has had some success on
 the merits (citation omitted)). We therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its
 discretion in denying Gasper's request for attorneys' fees.

 7
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 8 of 16

 was entitled to a larger monthly payment, and (2) the plan administrator was responsive to

 Gasper's request for documents, Gasper was not prejudiced in the administrative appeals

 process, and Gasper was not entitled to statutory penalties. Gasper challenges these

 conclusions on appeal, and we address them in turn below.

 II.

 A party is entitled to summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute as to any

 material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.

 P. 56(a). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court construes "all facts and

 reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

 party." Tekmen v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 55 F.4th 951, 958 (4th Cir. 2022)

 (citation omitted). As we have explained, even in the ERISA context, "summary judgment

 is appropriate when the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of

 law." Id. at 959 (citation omitted).

 A.

 We begin by addressing Gasper's argument that the district court erred in

 concluding that the plan administrator properly denied his claim for increased monthly

 benefits. Before considering the merits of this argument, we first address the applicable

 standards of review.

 i.

 In appeals under ERISA challenging a plan administrator's decision, we have

 articulated a general rule that the same standard of review applies to cases heard in the

 8
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 9 of 16

 district court and in this Court. Williams v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 622, 629 (4th

 Cir. 2010). However, our Circuit has not directly addressed whether courts should review

 de novo, or apply an abuse of discretion standard to, a plan administrator's interpretation

 of a QDRO adopting the terms of a DRO entered by a state court.

 Here, the district court applied a de novo standard in reviewing the plan

 administrator's interpretation of the QDRO, and we agree with the district court's choice

 of analytical framework. As recognized by our two sister circuits addressing this issue, a

 plan administrator's special expertise in interpreting plan provisions, which warrants

 application of an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing such decisions, does not extend

 to the interpretation of a state court order memorializing the parties' agreement. See

 Matassarin v. Lynch, 174 F.3d 549, 563-64 (5th Cir. 1999); Hullett v. Towers, Perrin,

 Forster & Crosby, Inc., 38 F.3d 107, 114-15 (3d Cir. 1994). Instead, the QDRO is a court-

 approved contract between the parties and, therefore, is subject to ordinary rules of contract

 interpretation under state law. See Myers v. Myers, 714 S.E.2d 194, 198 (N.C. App. 2011).

 So, we review de novo the language of the QDRO. And we apply an abuse of discretion

 standard to the plan administrator's exercise of discretionary authority under the plan to

 make calculation determinations for plan beneficiaries. Williams, 609 F.3d at 629; Cosey

 v. Prudential Ins. Co., 735 F.3d 161, 165 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Firestone Tire & Rubber

 Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 111 (1989)).

 ii.

 Gasper argues that, under the terms of the QDRO, he and his former spouse agreed

 that she would bear the cost of the surviving spouse annuity. In making this assertion,

 9
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 10 of 16

 Gasper relies on the QDRO language stating that "the Alternate Payee's benefit may be

 reduced as necessary to cover the cost of the [surviving spouse annuity] awarded to

 Alternate Payee," Gasper's former spouse. J.A. 636. Gasper contends that use of the word

 "may" renders the provision ambiguous because, in certain contexts, "may" can be

 construed as a mandatory term equivalent to "shall." According to Gasper, this ambiguity

 is resolved by the absence of any reference in the QDRO to a reduction in his portion of

 the retirement benefit to fund the cost of the surviving spouse annuity. Thus, Gasper

 maintains that the parties necessarily intended that any cost associated with the surviving

 spouse annuity would be borne solely by his former spouse's share of the retirement

 benefit. 5

 Gasper further asserts that the district court should have examined extrinsic

 evidence of the parties' intent, namely, Gasper's own declaration setting forth his

 understanding of the QDRO, to resolve the purported ambiguity. And finally, Gasper

 contends that the plan administrator abused her discretion in calculating his monthly

 benefit payment at $3,400, rather than $3,785.26. We disagree with Gasper's arguments.

 We begin our analysis by consulting familiar principles of North Carolina contract

 law, which we apply to interpret the language of the QDRO. In North Carolina, when a

 court interprets a contract, the court's primary function is to ascertain the parties' intention

 5
 We decline to consider Gasper's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that
 the plan administrator's interpretation of the QDRO conflicts with requirements in 29
 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), which requires a DRO to specify the amount or percentage to be
 paid to the alternate payee. Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating
 "this court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, absent exceptional
 circumstances" (citation omitted)).
 10
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 11 of 16

 as expressed in their written instrument. Lane v. Scarborough, 200 S.E. 2d 622, 624 (N.C.

 1973). If the plain language of a contract is clear, the intention of the parties is inferred

 from the words of the contract considered as a whole. State v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 685

 S.E.2d 85, 90 (N.C. 2009). Only when the terms of a contract are ambiguous are courts

 authorized to apply rules of construction or to consider extrinsic evidence of the parties'

 intent. See Root v. Allstate Ins. Co., 158 S.E.2d 829, 835 (N.C. 1968).

 Here, the district court concluded that the language of the QDRO was unambiguous,

 and we agree. Considering the QDRO as a whole, we conclude that the language stating

 that "the alternate payee's benefit may be reduced as necessary to cover the cost" of the

 surviving spouse annuity authorizes, but does not require, the plan administrator to allocate

 the cost of the surviving spouse annuity to the alternate payee's portion of the benefit. J.A.

 636.

 The QDRO's structure and wording compel this conclusion. Throughout the

 document, mandatory obligations are denoted by the word "shall." For example, the

 QDRO states that plan administrator "shall distribute benefits to the Alternate Payee in the

 form of a monthly annuity payable" over Gasper's lifetime, and "shall distribute benefits

 to the Alternate Payee if, as and when the Participant receives a benefit from the Plan, for

 as long as the Participant lives." J.A. 634-35 (emphasis added). The QDRO further

 provides that the alternate payee "shall be treated as a surviving spouse for a portion of the

 available" surviving spouse annuity. J.A. 636 (emphasis added).

 In contrast, the QDRO does not provide that the alternate payee's benefit "shall" be

 reduced to cover the cost of the surviving spouse annuity. Instead, the QDRO states that

 11
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 12 of 16

 her portion of the benefit "may be reduced as necessary" to bear that cost. Id. (emphasis

 added). Accordingly, even assuming that "may," in some contexts, can be construed as

 mandatory, the language of the QDRO as a whole does not support departing from the

 ordinary, permissive meaning of the term "may." Moreover, the absence of any express

 reference in the QDRO to the possibility that the cost might instead be allocated to Gasper's

 portion of the annuity does not alter the unambiguous, discretionary nature of the cost

 provision. Therefore, we conclude that the disputed terms in the QDRO are unambiguous. 6

 Accordingly, when Cauthen-Wilson issued her determination report qualifying the

 DRO and stating that "[a]t the participant's benefit commencement date, the total monthly

 benefit will be reduced to cover the cost associated with the [surviving spouse annuity],"

 she did not misapply the QDRO's terms. J.A. 601 (emphasis added). As the plan

 administrator later explained in denying Gasper's administrative appeal, "there is no actual

 ‘cost' [of the surviving spouse annuity] that may be assigned to the alternate payee, and no

 optional form that would accomplish that result." J.A. 562. The summary plan description

 confirms this understanding, noting that under the surviving spouse annuity, "the reduction

 in [the participant's] monthly pension is actuarially determined at the time [the participant]

 retires and start[s] to receive pension payments." J.A. 389-90. The summary plan

 description further includes as an example a calculation demonstrating that the actuarial

 adjustment for the surviving spouse annuity is implemented through a reduction in the

 6
 Based on this conclusion, we additionally hold that the district court did not err in
 failing to address Gasper's declaration of his intent underlying the QDRO.
 12
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 13 of 16

 participant's monthly pension amount. 7 J.A. 390. The plan administrator's understanding

 of the QDRO thus was consistent with both the QDRO's plain language and the plan's

 terms governing the cost of the surviving spouse annuity. 8

 After reviewing the record, we also do not find any abuse of discretion in the plan

 administrator's calculation of Gasper's monthly annuity payment. That calculation

 reflected her correct understanding of the QDRO language and the other relevant plan

 terms discussed above. 9 Accordingly, we affirm the district court's award of summary

 judgment in favor of the defendants on Gasper's claim that he was improperly denied

 benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132.

 B.

 We next address Gasper's argument that he was entitled to "statutory penalties"

 under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1), based on the plan administrator's failure to timely provide

 7
 Gasper argues that this example is inapplicable, because it describes a married plan
 participant, not a divorced plan participant. However, the QDRO plainly states that his
 former spouse "shall be treated as a surviving spouse" for the QJSA notwithstanding their
 divorce. J.A. 636.
 8
 We acknowledge that a summary plan description only provides communication
 about the plan terms, but the record shows that the summary plan description is consistent
 with the plan language. See J.A. 238, 241 ("To provide the monthly payment for the
 spouse," for the survivor annuity, the "employee's calculated pension will be reduced.").
 9
 The district court addressed and correctly applied the relevant factors to determine
 the reasonableness of the plan administrator's calculation of Gasper's monthly annuity
 payments. See Booth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Assocs. Health & Welfare Plan, 201 F.3d
 335 (4th Cir. 2000). We need not repeat the court's analysis here because Gasper's only
 arguments on appeal in this regard essentially reassert his arguments regarding the meaning
 of the QDRO and application of the plan terms addressing cost of the surviving spouse
 annuity.
 13
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 14 of 16

 certain plan documents as required by 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4). According to Gasper, there

 was no dispute that the plan administrator failed to provide him with several documents

 reflecting various "amendments to the plan" and summaries of "material modifications"

 for the plan, as well as the July 2008 summary plan description, which was applicable when

 the QDRO was qualified in April 2013. Gasper submits that the district court abused its

 discretion in failing to award statutory penalties because the court did not consider the

 "number" of omitted documents. We disagree with Gasper's argument.

 On written request of a plan participant, a plan administrator must provide a copy

 of the "latest updated summary plan description," and the latest annual report, contract or

 "other instruments under which the plan is established or operated." See Faircloth v. Lundy

 Packing Co., 91 F.3d 648, 652-53 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4)); see

 also Sedlack v. Braswell Servs. Grp., Inc., 134 F.3d 219, 225 (4th Cir. 1998). A plan

 administrator who fails to comply with such a request within 30 days "may in the court's

 discretion be personally liable" to the participant up to $100 per day. 29 U.S.C.

 § 1132(c)(1) (emphasis added). In exercising its discretion whether to impose a penalty on

 a plan administrator, a court may evaluate whether the participant was prejudiced by the

 failure to provide the requested plan documents and may further consider the nature and

 adequacy of the plan administrator's response to the participant's request. See Davis v.

 Featherstone, 97 F.3d 734, 738 (4th Cir. 1996); see also Devlin v. Empire Blue Cross &

 Blue Shield, 274 F.3d 76, 90 (2d Cir. 2001) (observing that factors to consider include bad

 faith, intentional conduct, length of delay, number of requests made and documents

 withheld, and any prejudice to the participant).

 14
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 15 of 16

 The record before us reflects that the plan administrator initially responded to

 Gasper's verbal request in June 2020 for the plan documents currently in effect. As the

 district court correctly noted, 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) does not obligate a plan administrator

 to respond to a participant's requests for plan documents unless that request is made in

 writing. The plan administrator also timely responded to Gasper's two written requests for

 plan documents, both of which were submitted following his second administrative appeal.

 Gasper nonetheless contends that the plan administrator failed to provide him with

 several plan amendment documents as well as the 2008 summary plan description. But the

 district court concluded that even assuming these materials fell within the scope of

 documents required to be provided under 29 U.S.C. § 1024(d)(4), Gasper was not entitled

 to statutory penalties.

 In considering this issue, we observe that Gasper ultimately received all requested

 documents after filing the present action, and he has not identified any prejudice resulting

 from his delayed receipt of the identified documents. As the district court noted, Gasper

 maintained two administrative appeals without these materials and failed to show that

 omission of the identified documents impaired his ability to present his claims. Moreover,

 with regard to the plan terms at issue in this case, the 2008 summary plan description

 language involving the cost of the surviving spouse annuity was materially identical to the

 2013 summary plan description language that Gasper timely received. The record also

 does not contain any evidence of bad faith or willful misconduct on the part of the plan

 administrator. We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

 15
 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1959 Doc: 48 Filed: 12/08/2025 Pg: 16 of 16

 declining to impose statutory penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). See Davis, 97 F.3d

 at 738; Devlin, 274 F.3d at 90.

 III.

 For these reasons, we affirm the district court's award of summary judgment to the

 defendants. 10

 AFFIRMED

 10
 We have reviewed Gasper's additional arguments raised in this appeal and
 conclude that they lack merit.
 16