UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE L. HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 97-1145

JESSE BROWN, Secretary, Department

of Veteran's Affairs,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.

Max O. Cogburn, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-96-53-1-C)

Submitted: April 21, 1998

Decided: May 19, 1998

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Charles R. Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.

Calloway, United States Attorney, Clifford C. Marshall, Assistant

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bruce L. Hoffmann filed this action pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552 (West 1996 & Supp.

1998), and the Privacy Act (PA), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552a (West 1996 &

Supp. 1998), seeking full disclosure of an unauthorized audiotape of

Hoffmann and other employees in the Engineering Section of the Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC), and an unredacted

copy of a certain investigative report of the Veterans Administration

(VA) Police. He appeals the order of the magistrate judge1 ordering

the Government to provide him with a redacted transcript or copy of

the audiotape and upholding the redaction of private citizen identifiers

from the investigative report under FOIA exemptions. We affirm.2

As the order appealed arises from a ruling on motions for summary

judgment, our review is de novo. See Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de

Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Hoffmann first

takes issue with the magistrate judge's finding that the redaction of

private citizen identifiers from the investigative report of the VA

Police was proper under FOIA. He contends that because the VA

Police were not conducting a criminal investigation, the identifiers in

the report were not exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C.A.

§ 552(b)(7)(C) (West 1996). After reviewing the record, we conclude

that the VA Police were indeed conducting a criminal investigation.

We therefore find that the private citizen identifiers were exempt from

disclosure under both FOIA and the PA because the production of

that information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwar-

_________________________________________________________________

1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West Supp. 1998).

2 The Government appears to contend that Hoffmann failed to properly

exhaust administrative remedies. We find that the Government conceded

exhaustion at the hearing on the cross motions for summary judgment.

 2
ranted invasion of personal privacy. See 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 552(b)(7)(C),

552a(j)(2), (k)(2) (West 1996).

Hoffmann next contends that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that he was entitled only to a redacted transcript or copy of an

unauthorized audiotape made of Hoffmann and other VAMC employees by a coworker with a voice activated tape recorder. Our review

of the record discloses that the magistrate judge correctly found that

Hoffmann was entitled to a transcript of the tape which was redacted

when there was no consent by individual VAMC employees. Because

the tape was compiled for law enforcement purposes pursuant to

investigations by the VA Inspector General and the United States

Attorney's Office, and since the release of dialogue of unconsenting

persons could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy, we find the exemption proper under

both FOIA and the PA. See 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 552(b)(7)(C), 552a(j)(2),

(k)(2); John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 153

(1989).

Finally, Hoffmann maintains that the magistrate judge failed to

address his request for a permanent injunction against the VAMC

from withholding properly requested information. As pointed out by

the Government, there is no right of prospective injunctive relief

under either FOIA or the PA. See 5 U.S.C.A.§ 552(a)(4)(B),

552a(g)(3)(A).

Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge's order. Having previously granted Appellant's motion to consider the case on the briefs,

we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3