David Carmichael v. Kathleen Sebelius , 568 F. App'x 232 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed as modified in part; affirmed in part by unpublished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.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
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 district court properly determined that the
Rooker-Feldman * doctrine barred counts II and VIII of the
complaint and the portion of count V not alleging a violation of
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A dismissal under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a 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 without prejudice, and we affirm the dismissal as
modified. 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
With respect to 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 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.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4