Abraham Pinzon v. SSA

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1141 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1141 ABRAHAM G. PINZON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; JULIE R. RUBIN, a District of Maryland U.S. Judge; LAUREL BEELER, U.S. Court Judge @ the Northern District of California; ARACELLI MARTINEZ OLQUIN, U.S. Court Judge @ the Northern District of California; DEBORAH BARNES, Eastern District U.S. Court of California; CHIEF JUDGE MUELLER, Eastern District U.S. Court of California, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:24-cv-01246-LKG) Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: June 20, 2025 Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abraham G. Pinzon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1141 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Abraham G. Pinzon appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Pinzon’s civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Assuming for the sake of this appeal that Pinzon properly served Defendants, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding Pinzon’s claims against the judicial defendants were barred by absolute judicial immunity. See, e.g., Gibson v. Goldston, 85 F.4th 218, 223 (4th Cir. 2023). Nor did the district court err in finding Pinzon failed to identify an adequate basis for the district court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over his claims against the Social Security Administration. We discern no error in the denial of Pinzon’s motion for default judgment. And our review of the record does not substantiate Pinzon’s claims of judicial bias. See, e.g., Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Pinzon v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 8:24-cv-01246-LKG (D. Md. Jan. 14, 2025). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2