Case ID: f-appx_135/html/0961-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard E. BUCKLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott J. BLOCH, Special Counsel, United States Office of Special Counsel; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-35645.
    D.C. No. CV-04-00422-TSZ.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 22, 2005.
    Richard E. Buckley, Seattle, WA, pro se.
    Marion J. Mittet, USSE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard E. Buckley, an attorney formerly employed by the Social Security Administration, appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his action against the United States Office of Special Counsel alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

‘Where no attempt to comply fully with agency procedures has been made, the courts will assert their lack of jurisdiction under the exhaustion doctrine.” In re Steele, 799 F.2d 461, 465-66 (9th Cir.1986) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order of July 2, 2004.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.