Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01518/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01518-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Casey Lynn Burner
Appellant
Commissioner of Social Security
Appellee
Social Security Administration

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 

Appeal: 14-1518 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1518 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/05/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

Appeal: 14-1518 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/05/2015 Pg: 3 of 3