Arthur Massey v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999188985-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00385-MOC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999246487]. Mailed to: Arthur W. Massey. [13-1933]

Appeal: 13-1933

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1933

ARTHUR W. MASSEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00385-MOC)

Submitted:

November 21, 2013

Decided:

November 25, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur W. Massey, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Dun Rappaport, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1933

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Arthur

W.

Massey

appeals

the

district

court

order

upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision finding
Massey ineligible for Social Security Income (SSI) payments as
of September 2009, because he acquired non-home real properties
that increased his creditable resources above the limit for SSI
eligibility.
error.
stated

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons
by

the

district

court. *

Massey

3:12-cv-00385-MOC (W.D.N.C. July 17, 2013).
motion

to

reinstate

SSI

payments.

We

v.

Colvin,

No.

We deny Massey’s

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
*

While Massey appears to assert on appeal that the agency
improperly refused to approve a plan to achieve self-support
(“PASS”) that would allow him to exclude the challenged
properties from his resources determination, Massey did not
fairly raise this issue before the district court, where he
argued that he had received the properties as part of a PASS.
See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993)
(declining to consider issues raised for first time on appeal
absent exceptional circumstances).
In any event, the record
provides no indication that Massey ever submitted a PASS to the
Social Security Administration or that he meets the requirements
to qualify for a PASS.
See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1226 (2013)
(requirements for PASS).

2