David Carmichael v. Kathleen Sebeliu

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to schedule oral argument [999300364-2] Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00129-JAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999343719]. Mailed to: David Alan Carmichael. [13-2546]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-2546 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/25/2014 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2546 DAVID ALAN CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary U.S. Dept. Health & Human Services; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and its officers named herein acting in their official capacity under the color of State Law; CAROLYN W. COLVIN, in her official capacity as Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00129-JAG) Submitted: April 22, 2014 Decided: April 25, 2014 Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Alan Carmichael, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, John David Gilbody, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Appeal: 13-2546 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/25/2014 Pg: 2 of 4 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 13-2546 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/25/2014 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: David Alan Carmichael appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action challenging the requirements that he provide a social security number to apply for a Virginia diver’s license and that his record with the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles contain his social security number. The Rooker-Feldman * district doctrine court properly barred counts determined II and that VIII of the the complaint and the portion of count V not alleging a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a A dismissal under the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Adkins v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 456, 463 (4th Cir. 2006), and thus should be without prejudice. S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Assoc., Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). We therefore modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal of these counts is modified. without prejudice, and we affirm the dismissal as See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012); MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e are entitled to affirm the court’s judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from the record.”). * D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). 3 Appeal: 13-2546 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/25/2014 With respect to Pg: 4 of 4 the district court’s dismissal of Carmichael’s remaining counts for relief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, as to those counts, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Carmichael v. Sebelius, No. 3:13-cv-00129-JAG (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2013). We deny Carmichael’s motion to schedule oral argument and dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?