Legal Opinion
Beattie v. Barnhart
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided February 28, 2012No. Civil Action No. 2001-2493PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RICHARD W. ROBERTS, District Judge.
The four remaining claims 1 of plaintiff Michael Beattie’s second amended complaint allege violations of the Due Process Clause and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, and a Bivens tort against an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) 2 and five unnamed SSA employees. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552, 552a; 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). The Commissioner has moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Liteky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security AdministrationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Augustus v. McHughDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Tsitrin v. LettowDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Deanna English v. Social Security AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
- Peevy v. DonahueDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.