Case Name: Eddie HATFIELD, Petitioner, v. HOBET MINING, INCORPORATED; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-16
Citations: 158 F. App'x 444
Docket Number: No. 05-1725
Parties: Eddie HATFIELD, Petitioner, v. HOBET MINING, INCORPORATED; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
Eddie HATFIELD, Petitioner, v. HOBET MINING, INCORPORATED; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 05-1725.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 16, 2005.
Eddie Hatfield, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot, Jackson Kelly, Pile, Charleston, West Virginia; Ashley Marie Harman, Kathy Lynn Snyder, Jackson Kelly, Pile, Morgantown, West Virginia; Michelle Seyman Gerdano, Patricia May Nece, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.; Helen Hart Cox, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Hatfield 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 affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Hatfield v. Hobet Mining, Inc., No. 04-645-BLA (BRB May 26, 2005). 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