Kent v. Norfolk Shipbuilding

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2615
RICHARD KENT,
Petitioner,
versus
NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CORPORATION;
BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, UNITED STATES DEPART-
MENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(99-206)
Submitted: May 10, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Klein, MONTAGNA, KLEIN & CAMDEN, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Richard E. Garriott, Jr., CLARKE, DOLPH, RAPAPORT,
HARDY & HULL, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard Norris Kent petitions this court for review of a deci-
sion and order of the Benefits Review Board ("Board") affirming the
administrative law judge's denial of longshore benefits on the
ground that Kent's injury did not occur on a covered situs, as
required by 33 U.S.C.A. § 903(a) (West 1986 & Supp. 1999). We have
reviewed the briefs and record on appeal, and our review discloses
that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence, is
rational, and is in accordance with the law. See Norfolk Ship-
building & Drydock Corp. v. Hord, 193 F.3d 797, 800 (4th Cir. 1999)
(stating standard of review). Accordingly, because we find that
the site of the injury is not a covered situs, see Sidwell v.
Express Container Servs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1134, 1138-40 (4th Cir.
1995), we deny Kent's petition for review on the reasoning of the
Board. See Kent v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., No. 99-
206 (B.R.B. Oct. 29, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
2