Case Name: Casey Lynn BURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee, and Social Security Administration, Party-in-Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-05
Citations: 592 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 14-1518
Parties: Casey Lynn BURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee, and Social Security Administration, Party-in-Interest.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 592
Pages: 208–208

Head Matter:
Casey Lynn BURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee, and Social Security Administration, Party-in-Interest.
No. 14-1518.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 8, 2014.
Decided: Feb. 5, 2015.
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 Giac-chino, Supervisory Attorney, David Leach, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 (ND.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.