David Carmichael v. Kathleen Sebelius

568 F. App'x 232

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2014
• Docket: 13-2546
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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.”).

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, 2013 WL 5755618 (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.

* D.C. Ct.App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).