Case Name: Robert Edward THORNTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan King MARTIN, Social Security Administration; Jane L. Warren, Social Security Administration; D.F. Billett, Administrative Law Judge, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-07
Citations: 26 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 01-2426
Parties: Robert Edward THORNTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan King MARTIN, Social Security Administration; Jane L. Warren, Social Security Administration; D.F. Billett, Administrative Law Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 26
Pages: 341–341

Head Matter:
Robert Edward THORNTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan King MARTIN, Social Security Administration; Jane L. Warren, Social Security Administration; D.F. Billett, Administrative Law Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-2426.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 28, 2002.
Decided Feb. 7, 2002.
Robert Edward Thornton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert Edward Thornton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his civil action alleging that the Appellees improperly handled his social security case. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We find that the action is most properly construed as one under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named, Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). As noted by the district court, Thornton does not specify any claim against the Appellees other than that they improperly handled his application for social security benefits and improperly evaluated him. Even if we liberally construe his complaint to allege due process violations, we find that Thornton fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Bivens. See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 428-29, 108 S.Ct. 2460, 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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.