Filed: Feb. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1991 MICHAEL J. GIRO, Petitioner, v. U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Railroad Retirement Board. (15-AP-0066) Submitted: February 10, 2020 Decided: February 13, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Giro, Petitioner Pro Se. Patrick Sullivan Polk, Office o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1991 MICHAEL J. GIRO, Petitioner, v. U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Railroad Retirement Board. (15-AP-0066) Submitted: February 10, 2020 Decided: February 13, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Giro, Petitioner Pro Se. Patrick Sullivan Polk, Office of..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1991
MICHAEL J. GIRO,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Railroad Retirement Board. (15-AP-0066)
Submitted: February 10, 2020 Decided: February 13, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Giro, Petitioner Pro Se. Patrick Sullivan Polk, Office of General Counsel, U.S.
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Chicago, Illinois, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael J. Giro seeks review of the Railroad Retirement Board’s decision affirming
the hearings officer’s determination that March 1, 2013, is the beginning date of Giro’s
disability annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 231-231v (2018). Our
review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence
and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. Appeal of Michael J. Giro, No. 15-AP-0066 (R.R.B. Sept. 12,
2017). 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.
PETITION DENIED
2