David Carmichael v. Kathleen Sebelius, No. 13-2546 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2546 DAVID ALAN CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity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 Affirmed as modified in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: David Alan Carmichael appeals the district court s order dismissing his civil action challenging the requirements that he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 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. ยง 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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
