From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henderson v. Schuenemeyer

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 27, 2009
325 F. App'x 397 (5th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 09-50123 Summary Calendar.

May 27, 2009.

David E. Henderson, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 3-.08-CV-153.

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.


Pro se appellant David Henderson brought suit against Ramona Schuenemeyer, Regional Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, seeking recovery of a social security insurance payment that was allegedly deposited into a wrong account. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, which concluded that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that Henderson failed to state a claim. The district court dismissed Henderson's claim with prejudice. On appeal, Henderson does not contend that the district court's legal conclusions were incorrect. See Brinkmann v. Aimer, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Instead, Henderson argues that both the district court judge and the magistrate judge were biased against him in violation of his due process rights and alleges that the district court judge met secretly with Schuenemeyer outside of Henderson's presence.

Henderson presents no evidence indicating bias on the part of either judge or suggesting that the district court judge had any interaction with Schuenemeyer. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal with prejudice.


Summaries of

Henderson v. Schuenemeyer

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 27, 2009
325 F. App'x 397 (5th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Henderson v. Schuenemeyer

Case Details

Full title:David E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ramona SCHUENEMEYER, Regional…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 27, 2009

Citations

325 F. App'x 397 (5th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

United States v. Perdomo

But that line of cases does not aid Perdomo because neither he nor the district court took any action related…