Case ID: f-appx_67/html/0847-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dottie M. WOMACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-1325.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2003.
    Decided July 10, 2003.
    
      Dottie M. Womack, Appellant Pro Se. Kim Frances Piner, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.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.