Casey Burner v. Comm'r of Social Security
Casey Burner v. Comm'r of Social Security
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1518
CASEY LYNN BURNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00028-JPB-JES)
Submitted: December 8, 2014 Decided: February 5, 2015
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis M. Miller, TRAVIS MILLER ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia; Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Stephen Giacchino, Supervisory Attorney, David Leach, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 - PER CURIAM:
Casey Lynn Burner (Burner) appeals from the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation recommending the district court grant summary
judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security with
respect to Burner’s challenge to the denial of her application
for childhood supplemental security income benefits under
Subchapter XVI of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1385. After reviewing the briefs and the record on
appeal, we conclude there is no reversible error in the district
court’s decision. Thus, we affirm on the reasoning of the
magistrate judge, as adopted by the district court. Burner v.
Commissioner, No. 2:13–cv–00028,
2014 WL 1479201(N.D.W.Va. Apr.
15, 2014).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished