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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed as modified in part; affirmed in part by unpublished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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?