Court Opinion

ID: 9368147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 21:00:45.873293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.824333
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1275   Doc: 22         Filed: 02/01/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                         UNPUBLISHED

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                           No. 21-1985

        TERRY D. REESE, SR.,

                         Petitioner,

                   v.

        VIRGINIA INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS, LLC; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY
        ASSOCIATION, LIMITED; CP&O, LLC; PORTS INSURANCE COMPANY,
        INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
        PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

                         Respondents.

                                           No. 22-1275

        TERRY D. REESE, SR.,

                         Petitioner,

                   v.

        VIRGINIA INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS, LLC; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY
        ASSOCIATION, LIMITED; CP&O, LLC; PORTS INSURANCE COMPANY,
        INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
        PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

                         Respondents.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1275      Doc: 22         Filed: 02/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Benefits Review Board. (21-0100)

        Submitted: December 30, 2022                                      Decided: February 1, 2023

        Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Terry D. Reese, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. William M. Bush, Mark A. Reinhalter, UNITED
        STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Frank Nash Bilisoly, WOODS
        ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK, Norfolk, Virginia; Christopher R. Hedrick,
        MASON, MASON, WALKER & HEDRICK, PC, Newport News, Virginia, for
        Respondents.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1275      Doc: 22         Filed: 02/01/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Terry D. Reese, Sr., petitions for review of the June 30, 2021, order and the

        October 29, 2021, order of the Benefits Review Board (Board) denying reconsideration.

        On April 28, 2021, the Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision and

        order granting the Respondents’ motions for summary disposition. On May 14, 2021,

        Reese timely moved for reconsideration.          On June 30, 2021, the Board denied

        reconsideration and affirmed the prior Board decision. On August 4, 2021, Reese filed a

        second motion for reconsideration. Reese’s pro se petition for review was received by this

        Court on September 7, 2021, seeking review of the Board’s June 30, 2021, decision

        denying reconsideration. (No. 21-1985). On October 29, 2021, the Board denied Reese’s

        second motion for reconsideration without modification. Reese timely petitioned for

        review. (No. 22-1275).

               At the outset, we note that Reese did not petition for review of the Board’s

        April 28, 2021, order dismissing his appeal from the ALJ’s decision. We therefore lack

        jurisdiction to review that order. We also lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s two orders

        denying reconsideration. “Where a party petitions an agency for reconsideration on the

        ground of ‘material error,’ i.e., on the same record that was before the agency when it

        rendered its original decision, an order which merely denies rehearing is not itself

        reviewable.” Betty B Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Programs, 194 F.3d 491, 96

        (4th Cir. 1999) (cleaned up); see also I.C.C. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 482 U.S. 270,

        280 (1987).

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1275      Doc: 22         Filed: 02/01/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

               Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny

        as moot the motion to dismiss filed by CP&O, LLC, and grant the motion to withdraw the

        motion to dismiss submitted by Signal Mutual Indemnity Association, Ltd., and Virginia

        International Terminals, LLC. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                         PETITIONS DISMISSED

                                                    4