Filed: Aug. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1404 FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MS. AMY; ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendants - Appellees, and MS. JACKSON, Case manager; ELIZABETH B. DEJARNETTE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:16-cv-00494-MSD-LRL) Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 22, 2019 Bef
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1404 FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MS. AMY; ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendants - Appellees, and MS. JACKSON, Case manager; ELIZABETH B. DEJARNETTE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:16-cv-00494-MSD-LRL) Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 22, 2019 Befo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1404
FRANKLIN C. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. AMY; ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MS. JACKSON, Case manager; ELIZABETH B. DEJARNETTE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:16-cv-00494-MSD-LRL)
Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 22, 2019
Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Franklin C. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Garry Daniel Hartlieb, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Franklin C. Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil action
filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403
U.S. 388 (1971), and also challenging the temporary suspension of his social security
benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Amy, No. 2:16-cv-00494-MSD-
LRL (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2019). We 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
2