Case ID: f-appx_437/html/0558-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Karl D. CHROMY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-36052.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 9, 2011.
    Robert David Nesler, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Karl D. Chromy, Portland, OR, pro se.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Karl D. Chromy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action seeking review of a final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his objection to the appointment of Integrity Plus, RPP, as his representative payee responsible for oversight of his disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision on mootness. Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir.1985). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed this action because it was rendered moot when Integrity Plus resigned its appointment as Chromy’s payee. See id. (“A moot action is one where the issues are no longer live....”).

Chromy’s remaining contentions, including those concerning discovery and service of the motion to dismiss, are unavailing.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.