[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 98 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 03 75 -RLD WALLACE C. JONES, JR., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, MIAMI, S REGION, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF TH E UNITED STATES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 16 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 1 of 13PER CURI AM:

W al la ce J on es , Jr., p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the m ag is tra te jud ge ’s den ia l of Jo ne s’s Fe d.R .Civ .P. 60 (b ) (“ Ru le 60 (b )”) m ot io n s eek in g re li ef fro m th e jud gm en t af

firm in g t he de ni al of d is ab il it y in su ran ce b en efi ts (“ DIB”) by the Co m m is si on er o f th e So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on (“ th e Co m m is si on er”) , 42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g ). Forth e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm . I. InJan uary

20 08 , Jo ne s fi le d a n app li cat io n fo r DIB u nd er Tit le II an d P artA of Tit le XVIII o f th e So ci al Secu rity Act. His cla im s wer e d en ie d, an d h e reque st eda he ari ng be fo re an adm in is tra ti ve law ju dg e (“ ALJ”) . At th e h eari ng , th e ALJ ex pl ai ne d t o J on es th atitwou ldbe di ffi cu ltto est ab li sh th athe was di sabl edbe twee n 1 99 3, the all eg edon se t d at e o f hi s d is ab il it y , and19 98 , when he was las t i ns ur ed , inpart, b ecau se he was i n p ris on fro m 19 94 to 20 07 . The ALJ rev ie wedwith J on es th e rec or ds th e ALJ h adwith re sp ectto th e p eri odbe twee n 19 93 an d 1 99 8 a ndno te d t ha t, fro m 19 93 to 19 98 , he o nl y

ha d t wo re co rd s, wh ic h were fr om

19 94 . The ALJ a sk edJo ne s wh ethe r he ha d a ny add it io na l ev id en ce t o pr ov id e to th e ALJ re ga rd in g t he pe rio d b etween19 93 an d 1 99 8. J on es res po nd ed by referen ci ng a reco rdreg ard in g a19 93 he adin jury thatth e ALJ the n i nc lu de d i n

2 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 2 of 13th e ev id en ce b efo re h im .

Inad di ti on to th e rec or d c on cern in g J on es ’s hea d i nju ry , th e m ed ic al ev id en ce b efo re the ALJ co nt ai ne d re co rd s fr om th e Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s (“ DOC”). A DOC rep ort fr om 20 06 in di cat edth atJo ne s h adrece iv ed se ve n d iff eren t l ab pro cedur es be twee n 1 99 4 a nd19 97 , bu t the rem ai nd er o f th e DOC’s reco rd s d idno t re fere nc e th atti m e p eri od . A 20 06 DOC reco rdrefl ect ed th ata ph y si cal ex am in at io n o f Jo ne s s ho wedno rm al res ul ts . Furt he r, th atreco rd st at edth atJo ne s h adde ni edpre vi ou s h os pi ta li zat io ns , m ajoril ln es se s, o r pr io r su rg eri es , bu t h adsu st ai ne d h eadtraum a in19 93 . Afte r rev ie win g t he ev id en ce i n t he reco rd , th e ALJ fo un d t ha t J on es ha d no t b eenun de r a d is ab il it y th ro ug h t he da te he was l as t i ns ur edbe cau se he di d n ot su fferfro m

a m ed ic al ly det erm in ab le sev ere i m pa irment. Th e ALJ fo un d tha t Jo ne s h adsu ffer eda se rio us he adin jury in Dec em

be r 19 93 , bu t tha t the reco rd de m on st rat edth athe was abl e to res um e work wi th in a y ear f ro m hi s d is ch arg e fro m th e h os pi ta l. Oth er tha n p os it iv e labo rat ory tes ts forcan di daan d m

um ps an ti bo di es in19 94 , th ere was no ev id en ce o f an y im pa irments or l im it at io ns th ro ug h t he da te las t i ns ur ed . Furthe r, no ne co ul d b e in ferr edfro m th e rec or d ba se d o n t he DOC reco rdth atsh owe d t ha t J on es ’s 20 06 ex am was e nt ire ly norm al . Jo ne s s ou gh t ju di ci al rev ie w inth e d is tri ctco urt. Inhi s co m pl ai nt , he 3 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 3 of 13so ug htm on ey da m ag es , all eg in g due pro ces s v io la ti on s re la te d t o t he Co m m is si on er’s d en ia ls of DIB . The p art ie s co ns en te d t o am ag is tra te jud ge he ari ng th e cas e p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c). On M ay 19 , 20 10 , th e Co m m is si on er s erv edJo ne s wi th th e adm in is tra ti ve tra ns cri ptth atco nt ai ne d t he ev id en ce tha t was be fo re the ALJ. On Se pt em

be r 30 , 20 10 , th e m ag is tra te affi rm edth e d en ia l o f DIB t o J on es . Inhi s o rd er, the m ag is tra te in di cat edth atJo ne s h adfai le d t o c it e to any st atut ory waiv er o f so ve rei gn imm un it y th atwou ldall ow h im

to reco ve r da m ag es fro m th e Co m m is si on er b as edon th e DIB d et erm in at io n. Fu rth er, the de ni al of DIB res ul ti ng fro m

du e p ro ces s v io la ti on s d idno t g iv e ri se to a cau se of a ct io n fo r m on ey da m ag es ag ai ns t the Co m m is si on er. InOcto be r 20 10 , Jo ne s fi le d am ot io n s eek in g a n e xt en si on of t im e to fil e an ap pe al to th e d is tri ctco urt, s o t ha t h e co ul d o bt ai n a dd it io na l m ed ic al reco rd s tha t he ass ert edth atth e ALJ h adfai le d t o o bt ai n. Th e m ag is tra te de ni edhi s m ot io n be cau se Jo ne s h adco ns en te d t o t he m ag is tra te ’s juri sd ic ti onto en te r fi na l jud gm en t. J on es th enfil eda Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n t ha t s ou gh t re li ef fro m th e m ag is tra te ’s ord er af

firm in g t he de ni al of DIB an d fi le d s up pl em en ta l m ed ic al reco rd s fr om

Octo be r 19 94 th ro ug h Dec em be r 19 98 th atth e ALJ h adno t pr ev io us ly con si de redrel at edto hi s h eartco nd it io n. In hi s m ot io n, J on es arg ue d 4 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 4 of 13th atth e ALJ h adfai le d t o fu lfi ll it s dut y to ful ly andfai rly dev el op th e rec or d b y ob ta in in g m ed ic al reco rd s dur in g h is cla im edpe rio d o f di sabi li ty. Jo ne s al so as se rte d tha t the m ag is tra te ha d e rredinde te rm in in g tha t h e was no t en ti tl edto da m ag es , as t he Co m

m is si on er h adde pr iv edhi m of h is rig htto du e p ro ces s b y no t ob ta in in g t he reco rd s dur in g t he rel ev an t t im e p eri od . The Co m m is si on er re sp on de d t ha t the m ag is tra te sh ou ldno t g ran t J on es ’s m ot io n, as he ha d fa il edto sh ow tha t a s en te nc e si x re m an d und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g ) was warran te d. Th e m ag is tra te ag reed , fin di ng th atth e rec or ds were n ot ne w bec au se th ey

ex is te d a t the ti m e o f th e adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs , andth at th e ALJ fu ll y

an d fa irl y

de ve lo pe d t he reco rd . The m ag is tra te no te d tha t h e h ad pr ev io us ly addres se d J on es ’s con te nt io n t ha t h e was de pr iv edof h is co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto du e p ro ces s an d d ecl in edto re-ad dr es s the is su e. II. On ap pe al , Jo ne s ar gu es th atth e m ag is tra te ab us edhi s d is cret io n wh enhe fo un d tha t J on es ’s supp le m en ta l m ed ic al reco rd s d idno t warran t a s en te nc e si x rem an d. He as se rts th athi s s up pl em en ta l m ed ic al reco rd s wer e n ew, as th e ALJ ha d n otpre vi ou sl y

co ns id eredth em

be cau se of t he ALJ’s fai lu re t o fu ll y an d fa irl y de ve lo p t he reco rd . Jo ne s ar gu es th athe m etth e rem ai ni ng requi rem en ts fora se nt en ce s ix rem an d. J on es furth er ar gu es th atth e Co m m is si on er i s n otpro te ct ed 5 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 5 of 13by the do ctrin e o f so ve rei gn imm un it y an d t ha t d am ag es are re co ve rab le be cau se th e ALJ v io la te d h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts by fail in g t o d ev el op hi s m ed ic al reco rd . Jo ne s co nt en ds th atth e m ag is tra te de ni edJo ne s h is rig htto du e p ro ces s b y erro ne ou sl y

de nyin g h is Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n a ndby notre-a dd res si ng hi s ar gu m en t fo r da m ag es . 1 W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m th e jud gm en t fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. W ad de ll v. Hend ryCn ty . Sh er if

f’s Off ic e , 32 9 F .3d13 00 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Pro se pl ead in gs are h el d t o ales s s tri ng en t st an da rdth anth os e th atare draft edby atto rn ey s an d a re l ib eral ly con st ru ed . Box er X v. Harris , 43 7 F .3d11 07 , 11 10 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b )(2 ) pe rm it s re li ef fro m a fi na l ju dg m en t, o rd er, o r pr oc eed in g b as edon “ ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce.” In re Con so rc io Ecua to ri an o de Tel eco mun ic ac io nes S.A. v. JAS Forwa rdin g (US A), Inc . , 68 5 F .3d98 7, 10 00 -0 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2) . For t he co urt t o g ran t Ru le 60 (b )(2 ) rel ie f, a m ov an t J ones does not see k revie w of the ma g istrate’s or der a nd judgme nt affir

ming the de nial 1 of DIB a nd only appea ls the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Thus, this issue is abandoned, a nd we do not addr ess it further . See Timson v. Sam pson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 ( 11th Cir. 2008) (providingthat issues that a pro seappellant f ailed to ra ise in his brief we re a bandoned) . J ones asser ts that the mag istrate abuse d his discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion because the Appea ls Council viol ated his due pr ocess rights by not review ing the AL J ’s dec ision, such that he is entitled to damag es. Howe ver, he did not raise this issue in his mot ion, and thus, we do not addre ss the issue. See A lbra v. Advan, I nc. , 490 F.3d 826, 828 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2007) (holding that we will not consider a

plaintiff’s pro seargument that was not ra ised in the district court and w as raised f or the fir st tim e on appe al). 6 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 6 of 13m

us t s ho w th at(1) th e ev id en ce was ne wly di sc ov eredsi nc e th e fi na l ju dg m en t; (2 ) th e m ov an t ac te d wi th du e d il ig en ce t o d is co ve r th e n ew ev id en ce; (3) th e ev id en ce i s n otm erel y

cu m ul at iv e; (4) th e ev id en ce i s m at eri al ; an d (5 ) th e ev id en ce i s s uc h t ha t a r eco ns id erat io n o f th e fi na l ju dg m en t wo ul d p ro babl y pr oduc e a n ew res ul t. Se e id. at10 01 . W he re a p arty

kn ows of n ew ev id en ce p rio r to th e en try of s umm ary jud gm en t an d fa il s t o s eeka co nt in ua nc e to ob ta inth e ne w in fo rm at io n, h e can no t p ers ua si ve ly argu e aft er the en try of s umm ary jud gm en t tha t h e h adne w evi de nc e o f whi chhe was u na ware an d wh ic h m ig ht ha ve he lp edhi m

to av oi d s umm ary jud gm en t. W ad de ll , 32 9 F .3dat 1 31 0 (h ol di ng th atpl ai nt iff

s h adno rig htto Ru le 60 (b )(2 ) rel ie f whe re the y were awar e o f th e

“ ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce” p rio r to th e d is tri ctco urt’s en try of s umm ary jud gm en t). Sen te nc e si x o f 42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g ) is th e o nl y way inwhi cha di st ric t co urt is pe rm it te d t o re m an d acas e to th e Co m mis si on er fo r co ns id erat io n o f ne w ev id en ce. In gr am v. Co mm’r o f S oc . Sec . Admin . , 49 6 F .3d12 53 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). To b e en ti tl edto a se nt en ce s ix rem an d, the cla im an t m us t s ho w th at (1 ) ne w, no n- cu m

ul at iv e ev id en ce ex is ts ; (2 ) th e ev id en ce i s m at eri al su chth ata reas on ab le po ss ib il it y

ex is ts th atth e n ew ev id en ce wo ul d c ha ng e th e adm in is tra ti ve res ul t; an d (3 ) go odcau se ex is ts for th e cl ai m an t’s fa il ur e to subm it 7 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 7 of 13th e ev id en ce atth e ap pr op ria te adm in is tra ti ve lev el . Ca ulde r v. Bo wen , 79 1 F .2d

87 2, 8 77 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). New evi de nc e is ev id en ce tha t was no t i n e xi st en ce o r av ai labl e to th e cl ai m an t atth e ti m e o f th e adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in g. Se e In gr am , 49 6 F .3dat 1 26 7. Ho wev er, n otev ery di sc ov ery of ne w evi de nc e, ev enif re le va nt an d p ro ba ti ve , wil l ju st ify a rem an d t o t he Secr et ary. Ca ulde r , 79 1 F .2dat 8 76 . Rathe r, se nt en ce s ix en co m pa ss es on ly tho se in st an ces inwhi chth e d is tri ctco urt le arn s o f ne w evi de nc e th atm ig htha ve ch an ge d t he ou tc om e o f th atpro ceed in g. In gr am , 49 6 F .3dat 1 26 7. The ALJ h as a du ty to d ev el op a fu ll an d fa ir r eco rdbe fo re d et erm in in g whe th er a cl ai m an t i s d is ab le d. Bro wn v. Sh alal a , 44 F.3d93 1, 9 34 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ); se e 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 51 0( d) (pr ov id in g t ha t the Co m mis si on er wi ll co m pl et e a cl ai m an t’s m ed ic al hi st ory forat l eas t the 12 m on th s p rece di ng th e m on th inwhi chth e cl ai m an t fi le d h is ap pl ic at io n u nl es s the re i s re as on to be li ev e th atde ve lo pm en t o f anearl ie r pe rio d i s n eces sa ry ); see al so Ell is on v. Barnh ar t , 35 5 F .3d12 72 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (p ro vi di ng th atth e ALJ was requi redto de ve lo p c la im an t’s m ed ic al hi st ory for th e 1 2 m on th s p rio r to th e ti m e th at cl ai m an t fi le d h is supp le m en ta l s oc ia l s ecu rit y in co m e ap pl ic at io n) . To de m on st rat e th ata cl ai m an t’s due pro ces s ri gh ts were v io la te d b y anALJ’s fai lu re to de ve lo p t he reco rd , th e cl ai m an t m us t s ho w pre

jud ic e. Se e Bro wn , 44 F.3d at 8 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 8 of 1393 5. In ev al ua ti ng whethe r a cl ai m an t h as sh own pre jud ic e, we ex am in e whe th er th e rec or d re ve al s ev id en ti ary gaps whi chres ul t i n u nf ai rn es s. Id. The c la im an t, ho wev er, b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g t ha t h e is di sabl ed , andthus , rem ai ns res po ns ib le forpro du ci ng ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s cl ai m . 20 C.F.R. § 4 04 .15 12 (a), (c ); Ell is on , 35 5 F .3dat 1 27 6 (p ro vi di ng th atcla im an t, wh o s ou gh t supp le m en ta l s oc ia l s ecu rit y in co m e, rem ai ne d re sp on si bl e fo r pr oduc in g e vi de nc e in supp ort o f hi s cl ai m). Jo ne s h as fai le d t o s ho w th athe is en ti tl edto Ru le 60 (b )(2 ) rel ie f. Jo ne s fir stbe cam e aware of t he factth atth e rec or d b efo re the ALJ was mis si ng m ed ic al reco rd s wh enth e Co m

m is si on er, dur in g t he pro ceed in gs be fo re the m ag is tra te , pr ov id edJo ne s wi th th e tr an sc rip t o f th e adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs inMay 201 1. Des pi te be in g a ware o f th is ev id en ce, i t was no t unt il aft er the m ag is tra te affi rm ed th e d en ia l o f DIB i n Oct ob er 2 01 1, tha t J on es m en ti on edth e ex is te nc e o f th e supp le m en ta l re co rd s t o t he m ag is tra te . Becau se Jo ne s was aware o f th e supp le m en ta l re co rd s p rio r to th e m ag is tra te ’s ent ry of ju dg m en t i n fa vo r of

th e Co m m is si on er an d fa il edto see k aco nt in uanc e unt il he co ul d o bt ai n t he ev id en ce, he is no t en ti tl edto Ru le 60 (b )(2 ) rel ie f. Se e W ad de ll , 32 9 F .3dat 1 31 0. Fu rth er, J on es ha s n otsh own th atth e ev id en ce wo ul d c ha ng e th e m ag is tra te ’s ord er af

firm in g t he de ni al of DIB , as re qu ire d fo r Ru le 60 (b )(2 ) rel ie f,

9 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 9 of 13be cau se he ha s n otsh own th atth e ev id en ce was “ ne w,” as requi redfora se nt en ce

si x re m an d. Se e In gr am , 49 6 F .3dat 1 26 7. Th e ev id en ce was inex is te nc e an d av ai labl e to hi m

at t he ti m e o f th e adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in g, as th e rec or ds were pr ep aredbe twee n 1 99 4 a nd19 98 , andJo ne s h as no t s ho wn tha t, h adhe reque st ed th e rec or ds du rin g t he adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs , th e rec or ds wou ldbe un av ai labl e. Jo ne s co nt en ds th atth e ev id en ce i s n ew be cau se itwas n otco ns id eredby th e ALJ due to th e ALJ’s fai lure t o d ev el op th e rec or d. Ho wev er, the bu rd en rem ai ne d o n J on es to pro ve th athe ha d adi sabi li ty. 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 51 2( a), (c) ; se e Ell is on , 35 5 F .3dat 1 27 6. Al th ou gh th e ALJ h ada du ty to fu ll y an d fa irl y de ve lo p t he reco rd , th e ALJ fu lfi ll edit s dut y he re. The Co m

m is si on er d idob ta in so m e DOC rec or ds , altho ug h, wi th th e ex cep ti on of s ev enirr el ev an t l ab res ul ts , no ne of the rep orts pe rta in edto th e p eri odof t im e b etween19 94 an d 1 99 8. Nev erthe le ss , th ere i s n ot hi ng fro m th e rec or d t ha t was be fo re the ALJ th at in di cat es th atth e Co m

mis si on er h adno t o bt ai ne d a ll of t he reco rd s tha t wer e av ai labl e fro m

th e DOC o r th atin di cat es th atad di ti on al reco rd s fr om ov er t en y ears ag o e ve n e xi st ed . Rath er, J on es di d n otap pe ar t o h av e m uc h o f a m ed ic al hi st ory with re sp ectto hi s h eartco nd it io n, as th e DOC rec or ds th atth e Co m m is si on er o bt ai ne d i nd ic at edth at , in20 06 , Jo ne s’s h eartwas “ no rm al ” an d 10 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 10 of 13th athe ha d n otha d a ny pri or m ajoril ln es se s o r ho sp it al iz at io ns , othe r th anth os e as so ci at edwith ahe adin

jury. Fu rth er, dur in g t he he ari ng , th e ALJ as ke d J on es whe th er the re was an y

ad di ti on al ev id en ce tha t J on es want edto sh ow, o th er tha n th e ev id en ce the ALJ al read y ha d, wh ic h t he ALJ in di cat edwas t wo re co rd s fr om 19 94 . Jo ne s d idno t i nf

orm th e ALJ o f th e ex is te nc e o f ad di ti on al DOC reco rd s i n th e cas e. Thu s, J on es ha s n otsh own th atth e ALJ fa il edto ful ly andfai rly dev el op th e rec or d i n 2 00 9 b y

no t o bt ai ni ng sp eci fic DOC reco rd s fr om 19 94 to 19 98 . Acco rd in gl y , des pi te th e fac t tha t the ad di ti on al reco rd s wer e n otpa rt o f th e rec or d du rin g t he adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs , Jo ne s h as no t s ho wn tha t the ev id en ce was

“ ne w,” su chth ata se nt en ce s ix rem an d was jus ti fie d. As th e ALJ fu lfi ll edit s dut y to de ve lo p t he reco rd , Jo ne s h as no t s ho wn tha t h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts were vi ol at edinth is res pe ct . Bro wn , 44 F.3dat 9 35 . Nex t, the m ag is tra te di d n otab us e h is di sc ret io n i n d ecl in in g t o re -ad dr es s Jo ne s’s re qu es t fo r da m ag es . The m ag is tra te ha d p rev io us ly det erm in edth at , eve n if J on es ha d s ho wn a due pro ces s v io la ti on , he was no t en ti tl edto da m ag es , and Jo ne s h as no t i de nt ifi edany erro r in th e m ag is tra te ’s ord er. As the m ag is tra te no te d, J on es ha d n otcit edto an y waiv er o f so ve rei gn imm un it y th atwou ldall ow hi m to reco ve r fro m

th e Co m m is si on er fo r an y

vi ol at io n o f Jo ne s’s due pro ces s rig ht s dur in g t he adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in g. Se e Aso ci ac io n de Empl ea do s d el 11 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 11 of 13Area Ca na le ra (ASEDAC) v. Pa na ma Ca na l Co mm’n , 45 3 F .3d13 09 , 13 15 (11 th

Ci r. 20 06 ) (p ro vi di ng th atth e g ov ern m en t m ay no t b e su edwitho utit s co ns en t an d th atth is imm

un it y ex te nd s t o fe de ral go ve rn m en t ag en ci es ). Furth er, al th ou gh in Bive ns v. Si

x Unk no wn Na med

Agen ts of

Fed. Bu re au of

Na rc ot ic s , 40 3 U.S. 3 88 , 39 7, 9 1 S .Ct. 1 99 9, 2 00 5, 2 9 L.Ed . 2d61 9 (1 97 1) , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t fed eral off

ic ia ls m ay

be su edinth ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es forvi ol at io ns of an in di vi du al ’s con st itut io na l ri gh ts , a pl ai nt iff m ay no t b rin g a Bive ns act io n a ga in st a fed eral ag en cy

or afed eral off

ic er ac ti ng inhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty. Se e Co rr . Se rvs. Co rp . v. Mal es ko , 53 4 U.S. 6 1, 6 6, 7 1, 1 22 S.Ct . 51 5, 5 19 , 52 1- 22 , 15 1 L.Ed.2 d 4 56 (20 01 ). Jo ne s h as no t s ue d a ny ind iv idua ls inth ei r in di vi du al cap aci ty. Last ly, th e Supr em e Co urt h as de te rm in edth atno Bive ns rem edy ex is ts with re sp ectto du e p ro ces s v io la ti on s co nc ern in g i m pr op er d en ia ls of s oc ia l se cu rit y be ne fit s. Sc hw ei ker

v. Ch il ic ky , 48 7 U.S. 4 12 , 41 4, 4 25 -2 9, 1 08 S.Ct . 24 60 , 24 63 , 24 68 -7 1, 1 01 L.Ed.2d37 0 (1 98 8) . Accor di ng ly, th e m ag is tra te di d no t ab us e h is di sc ret io n i n d ecl in in g t o re -ex am in e h is fin di ng th atJo ne s was no t en ti tl edto da m ag es . Fi na ll y , Jo ne s h as no t s ho wn tha t the m ag is tra te vi ol at edhi s due pro ces s rig ht s i n d en y in g h is Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n, as he ha s n otin di cat edho w he was de pr iv edof a n o pp ortuni ty to b e h eardat am ean in gf ul ti m e an d i n am ean in gf ul 12 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 12 of 13m an ne r. Se e Ma th ews v. Eld ri dg e , 42 4 U.S. 3 19 , 33 3, 9 6 S .Ct. 8 93 , 90 2, 4 7 L.Ed.2 d 1 8, (1 97 6) (pr ov id in g t ha t the fun da m en ta l re qu ire m en t o f du e p ro ces s i s th e ri gh t t o b e h eardat am ean in gf ul ti m e an d m an ne r). Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e m ag is tra te ’s den ia l o f Jo ne s’s Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

13 Case: 12-12983 Date Filed: 11/16/2012 Page: 13 of 13