Unpublished Dispositionjohn T. Gosnell, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kathy Clark; Social Security Administration; Commonwealth Ofkentucky, Defendants-appellees, 772 F.2d 906 (6th Cir. 1985)Annotate this Case
BEFORE: MERRITT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges; and HOGAN, Senior District Judge* .
These cases have been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the briefs and records, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
In these actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff seeks redress from several individuals and entities for alleged constitutional rights violations. In No. 84-5268, plaintiff complains of a termination of social security disability benefits. In No. 84-5409 he demands monetary damages for an alleged act of extortion which is said to have taken place while he was a resident of Dismas House. The district court ultimately dismissed these actions and they have been consolidated for appellate purposes.
Upon consideration, we find ourselves in agreement with the district court's disposition of these cases. The named defendants in the social security action were clearly outside of the scope of Sec. 1983, while the extortion claim cannot be linked to any requisite state action. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the orders on review.
It appearing therefore that the question on which decision of the cause depends is so unsubstantial as not to need further argument, Rule 9(d) (3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit,
It is ORDERED that the final orders of the district court be and hereby are affirmed.
The Honorable Timothy S. Hogan, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation