Keller v. Social Security Administration

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00471-JRS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998743547]. Mailed to: David Keller. [11-1797]

Appeal: 11-1797

Document: 11

Date Filed: 12/14/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1797

Document: 11

Date Filed: 12/14/2011

Page: 2 of 2

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

Security benefits payments — is no longer viable.

Social

Accordingly,

See United States v. Hardy, 545

we dismiss the appeal as moot.

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)).
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2