UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS D. CROOKS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 95-7853

CHARLES WILLIAMS, SR.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-91-3850-3-17)

Argued: June 3, 1997

Decided: September 4, 1997

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Hammond Allen Beale, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Stephen J. Henry, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Crooks filed this lawsuit in district court seeking damages

from Charles Williams for alleged violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA). 18 U.S.C.§ 2510 et seq.

The district court entered judgment in favor of Williams at the conclusion of a bench trial. Crooks appeals that decision.

Williams owns and operates a residential health care facility. When

the facility began receiving harassing and obscene telephone calls, he

purchased a service known as "call tracing" from the telephone company. Each time the service was activated, the telephone company

traced the origins of the incoming call. Williams did not trace or

record any calls. Through use of this service, it was determined that

Crooks had made at least 41 harassing calls to the facility. Crooks

admitted that he placed the calls, pleaded guilty to state criminal

charges, and was sentenced to ten years in the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The state court suspended the sentence and

placed Crooks on probation for five years. The court also ordered him

not to contact his victims, including Williams.

In December of 1991, Crooks filed this lawsuit in district court

alleging that Williams's use of the tracing service to uncover his

criminal activity violated the ECPA. Williams did not respond to the

suit, and the clerk entered default judgment against him. The reason

Williams did not respond is that he believed the suit violated the sentencing court's order prohibiting Crooks from contacting his victims.

Following a hearing on damages at which Williams appeared without

counsel, the magistrate judge recommended an award of $10,000 in

statutory damages. Without objection from Williams, the district court

entered judgment in accordance with the magistrate judge's recommendation. Several months later, the parties apparently agreed that

Williams would pay the award in monthly installments. Nevertheless,

less than a month after that, Williams's property was scheduled to be

sold to satisfy the judgment. Shortly before the sale, Williams asked

the district court to vacate the judgment.

The district court held a hearing to consider the motion to vacate.

Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court found that

 2
Williams reasonably believed the lawsuit was filed in violation of the

state court's no-contact order. That belief, the court decided, constituted good cause for not responding to the lawsuit. Because Williams

had demonstrated good cause and had presented evidence which suggested that Crooks's claims were meritless, the court vacated the

default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Subsequently, the court

denied Crooks's motion to enforce the parties' "settlement" agreement and held a bench trial. After the trial, the court entered judgment

in favor of Williams, concluding that he had not violated the ECPA.

On appeal, Crooks contends the district court abused its discretion

by vacating the default judgment and by not enforcing the parties'

"settlement" agreement. He also asserts that the court erred by ruling

that his claim was meritless and by holding, in the alternative, that

damages would be inappropriate on the facts of this case.

After careful review of the briefs and the record, we affirm for reasons adequately stated by the district court. Crooks v. Williams, No.

3:91-3850-17 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 1994)(order vacating default judgment); Crooks v. Williams, No. 3:91-3850-17 (D.S.C. Sep. 11,

1995)(order entering judgment in favor of Williams).

AFFIRMED

 3