Dottie M. Womack v. Commissioner of Department of Medical Assistance Services

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1325
DOTTIE M. WOMACK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL
ASSISTANCE SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-47-4)
Submitted: May 14, 2003 Decided: July 10, 2003
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dottie M. Womack, Appellant Pro Se. Kim Frances Piner, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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, 02-2184 (4th Cir. Dec. 17, 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 Servs., 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --