Keller v. Social Security Administration , 457 F. App'x 247 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-1797
    DAVID W. KELLER, and all Persons Similarly Situated,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    SOCIAL   SECURITY  ADMINISTRATION;   BARACK  HUSSEIN   OBAMA,
    President of the United States of America; TIMOTHY GEITHNER,
    Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:11-cv-00471-JRS)
    Submitted:   December 1, 2011             Decided:   December 14, 2011
    Before KING, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David W. Keller, Appellant Pro Se.    Helen L. Gilbert, Michael
    Raab, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David    W.   Keller    appeals     the   district   court’s     order
    dismissing without prejudice Keller’s civil complaint for lack
    of ripeness.      Shortly after entry of the district court’s order,
    Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (“the Act”), Pub.
    L. No. 112-25, 
    125 Stat. 240
     (2011), which raised the federal
    debt ceiling.      Given the passage of the Act, the legal basis for
    Keller’s complaint — that the failure to raise the debt ceiling
    would cause the country to default on its foreign debt, which in
    turn   would    necessitate       the   Government     to    withhold      Social
    Security benefits payments — is no longer viable.                   Accordingly,
    we dismiss the appeal as moot.              See United States v. Hardy, 
    545 F.3d 280
    , 285 (4th Cir. 2008) (explaining that this court should
    dismiss an appeal “when, by virtue of an intervening event, a
    court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in
    favor of the appellant” (internal quotation marks omitted)).                   We
    dispense   with     oral   argument     because      the    facts    and    legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1797

Citation Numbers: 457 F. App'x 247

Judges: King, Gregory, Diaz

Filed Date: 12/14/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024