Abraham G. Pinzon v. Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --