Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Stoner v. US Marine Corps, 04-2488 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2488 Visitors: 16
Filed: May 26, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2488 MARGARET STONER, Petitioner, versus UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS/MCCS; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (04-0245) Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Margaret Stoner, Petitioner Pro Se.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2488 MARGARET STONER, Petitioner, versus UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS/MCCS; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (04-0245) Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Margaret Stoner, Petitioner Pro Se. Mary L. Hostetter, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, Quantico, Virginia; Michael John Denney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Margaret Stoner seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of longshore disability benefits pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 (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 Stoner v. United States Marine Corps., No. 04-0245 (BRB Nov. 18, 2004). 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 - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer