Casey Burner v. Comm'r of Social Security, No. 14-1518 (4th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1518 CASEY LYNN BURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Casey court’s Lynn order recommendation Burner adopting (Burner) the recommending appeals magistrate from the the judge’s district court district report grant and summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security with respect to Burner’s challenge to the denial of her application for childhood Subchapter supplemental XVI §§ 1381-1385. of the After security Social reviewing income Security the briefs benefits Act, and the 42 under U.S.C. record on appeal, we conclude there is no reversible error in the district court’s decision. Thus, we affirm on the reasoning magistrate judge, as adopted by the district court. of the 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 - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.