Womack v. Commissioner of Department of Medical Assistance Services

Fourth Circuit

Womack v. Commissioner of Department of Medical Assistance Services

67 F. App'x 847

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 10, 2003

Docket03-1325

StatusUnpublished

This text of 67 F. App'x 847 (Womack v. Commissioner of Department of Medical Assistance Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Womack v. Commissioner of Department of Medical Assistance Services, 67 F. App'x 847 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dottie M. Womack appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Even assuming that Womack intended to name a federal official as a defendant, and assuming that such defendant was properly served, the district court correctly dismissed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) from this case. Womack was unsuccessful in a prior case brought against the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000) that challenged the denial of disability benefits. See Womack v. Barnhart, 53 Fed.Appx. 678 (4th Cir.2002). Accordingly, she is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata from bringing another such action against a federal official. See Meekins v. United Transp. Union, 946 F.2d 1054, 1057 (4th Cir.1991); see also McGowen v. Harris, 666 F.2d 60, 65 (4th Cir.1981). Moreover, Womack’s claim against the Department of Medical Assistance Services (“DMAS”) was correctly dismissed because claims arising under § 405(g) must be brought against the Commissioner, not an arm of the state such as DMAS, which is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See Womack v. Commissioner, Dep’t of Med. Assts Seros., No. CA-02-47-4 (W.D.Va. Mar. 7, 2003, Jan. 14, 2003, & Oct. 22, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Dottie M. Womack appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Even assuming that Womack intended to name a federal official as a defendant, and assuming that such defendant was properly served, the district court correctly dismissed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) from this case. Womack was unsuccessful in a prior case brought against the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000) that challenged the denial of disability benefits. See Womack v. Barnhart, 53 Fed.Appx. 678 (4th Cir.2002). Accordingly, she is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata from bringing another such action against a federal official. See Meekins v. United Transp. Union, 946 F.2d 1054, 1057 (4th Cir.1991); see also McGowen v. Harris, 666 F.2d 60, 65 (4th Cir.1981). Moreover, Womack’s claim against the Department of Medical Assistance Services (“DMAS”) was correctly dismissed because claims arising under § 405(g) must be brought against the Commissioner, not an arm of the state such as DMAS, which is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See Womack v. Commissioner, Dep’t of Med. Assts Seros., No. CA-02-47-4 (W.D.Va. Mar. 7, 2003, Jan. 14, 2003, & Oct. 22, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 F. App'x 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/womack-v-commissioner-of-department-of-medical-assistance-services-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack