Case Name: Gary L. SKEENS, Sr., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; Mountaineer Coal Development Company/Marrowbone Development; West Virginia Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis Fund, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-15
Citations: 293 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 08-1692
Parties: Gary L. SKEENS, Sr., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; Mountaineer Coal Development Company/Marrowbone Development; West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconio-sis Fund, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 293
Pages: 227–227

Head Matter:
Gary L. SKEENS, Sr., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; Mountaineer Coal Development Company/Marrowbone Development; West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconio-sis Fund, Respondents.
No. 08-1692.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2008.
Decided: Sept. 15, 2008.
Gary L. Skeens, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Allen Howard Feldman, Patricia May Nece, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.; Christopher Michael Hunter, Douglas Allan Smoot, Kathy Lynn Snyder, Jackson & Kelly, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gary L. Skeens, Sr., seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 901-945 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Skeens v. Director, OWCP, No. 07-659-BLA (B.R.B. Apr. 29, 2008). 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.
PETITION DENIED.