### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHEDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CORlE L. 

### MILLER, Plaintiff,



### v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OFJUSTICE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )



# --------------------------- ) Civil Action No. 09-1393 (RJL)

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, against the United States Department ofJustice ("DOJ"). OnNovember 10,2009, the defendant filed a motion for summaryjudgment with a supporting sworn statement. By order dated November 12,2009, the pro se plaintiffwas advised to respond to the dispositive motion by December 30, 2009, and warned that failure to respond could result in the dismissal ofthe complaint. Plaintiffhas not filed a response. Therefore, the Courtwill proceed onthe motion before it. In determining a motion for summaryjudgment, "the court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its statement ofmaterial facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in a statement ofgenuine issues filed in opposition to the motion." Local Civil Rule 7(h). The Court therefore treats the defendant's factual assertions as admitted. Summary judgmentis appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [] the movant is entitled tojudgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In a FOIA action, the Court may award summaryjudgment solely on the information provided in affidavits or declarations-2- that describe "thejustifications for nondisclosure withreasonably specific detail, demonstrate thatthe information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence ofagency bad faith." MilitaryAuditProject v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see also Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826 (D.C. Cir. 1973). PlaintiffsFOIA request sought all "information compiledby agent Massey with respect to requests bythe State ofNewJersey for analysis oflatent fingerprint evidence of[the plaintift]." See Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1, Decl. ofDavid M. Hardy ("Hardy Decl.")**~** 6 & Ex. A. The defendant describes its search for responsive records. See id.**~~** 14-19 (describing the records systems) 4,20-21 (describing search terms, the systems searched, and the search results). Onthis undisputed record, it appears that the search was adequate. It is undisputed that the defendant located 22 pages responsive to plaintiffsFOIA request in a file identified by the plaintiffs name. Id.**~~** 20,21,34 & Ex. G. Invoking FOIA Exemption 7(A), the defendant originallyrefusedto release any ofthe information in the 22 responsive pages based on an understanding thatthe information in the file was still being used in an ongoing law-enforcement investigation. Id.**~~** 10-11 & Ex. C; see also 5 U.S.c. § 552(b)(7)(A) (exempting from disclosure information compiled for law enforcementpurposes the release ofwhich could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcementproceedings). Afterthe plaintifffiled this lawsuit, the defendant determined that there was no ongoing investigation and that the information in the file couldbe processed for release. Hardy Decl.**~~** 13,21. The 22 pages were released to plaintiffwith redactions. Id.**~** 21 & Ex. G. The redactions were made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), to avoid releasing information, such as names ofFBI-3- support personnel or local law enforcement employees, that could constitute an unwarranted invasion ofpersonal privacy. 

### Id.**~~** 26-33 & Ex. G. These exemptions appear to bejustified and

are not disputed by the plaintiff. The defendant has determined that all segregable information has been released to the plaintiff, and the plaintiffdoes not dispute this claim. Onthis record, then, there is no genuine dispute ofmaterial fact and the defendant is entitled tojudgment as a matter oflaw. A separate order dismissing the case accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: United States District Judge