Casey Burner v. Comm'r of Social Security

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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Unpublished