UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2610 JEROME M. MYERS; SAMUEL KENNLEY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and LANTZ H. LITTLE; W. L. PACE; REGINALD A. LEE; JAMES E. YOUNG; ELMER E. MARTIN; UNDRA L. EVERSON; JIMMIE S. TAYLOR; THOMAS O. WILLIAMS; NORMAN ROBERT KNIGHT, III, Plaintiffs, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee, and PETER CAMPBELL, Claimant. No. 96-2698 ARTHUR PINCKNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant,2 and NORMAN WITHERSPOON; THOMAS WILLIAMS; CYNTHIA H. COAXUM; LUCILLE MYERS; NORMAN JAMES WITHERSPOON, Plaintiffs, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee, and FRANK SIMMONS, JR., Claimant. No. 96-2699 ELZINE R. FABERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and WILLIAM L. DIBBLE; NATHANIEL JUST; JAMES H. MOULTRIE; NATHANIEL JONES; ELDRIDGE C. LEE; ARTHUR L. NESBITT; HENRY L. MOORE, JR., Plaintiffs,3 versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-2720 DAVID RILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and THURMOND HAMMOND; CAROLYN G. CHAVIS; HORACE WILLIAMS; ODIS C. MOORE, JR.; WILLIAM GLOVER, Plaintiffs, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-2721 CAROLYN G. CHAVIS; WILLIAM GLOVER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and4 THURMOND HAMMOND; DAVID RILEY; HORACE WILLIAMS; ODIS C. MOORE, JR., Plaintiffs, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-2771 FRANK REED, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JASPER M. BRYANT; CATHIE M. CRAWFORD; JOHN DINGLE; HARVEY J. DOCTOR; SEAFUS JORDAN; LEROY M. LLOYD; ABRAHAM J. SMALLS; RICHARD A. SPENCER; JOSEPH SWINTON, JR.; VENA L. VAIRD; JAMES L. WASHINGTON, Plaintiffs, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee.5 No. 97-1859 HORACE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and THURMOND HAMMOND; CAROLYN G. CHAVIS; DAVID RILEY; ODIS C. MOORE, JR.; WILLIAM L. GLOVER, Plaintiffs, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 97-1860 HENRY L. MOORE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, and WILLIAM L. DIBBLE; NATHANIEL JUST; JAMES H. MOULTRIE; ELZINE R. FABERS; NATHANIEL JONES; ELDRIDGE C. LEE; ARTHUR L. NESBITT, Plaintiffs,6 versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-93-1064-2-18AJ, CA-93-1914-2-18AJ, CA-93-3206-2-18AJ, CA-93- 2410-2-18AJ, CA-93-3293-2-18AJ) Submitted: September 8, 1998 Decided: October 6, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome M. Myers, Samuel Kennley, Arthur Pinckney, Elzine R. Fabers, David Riley, Carolyn G. Chavis, William L. Glover, Frank Reed, Horace Williams, Henry L. Moore, Jr., Appellants Pro Se. John Harris Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).7 PER CURIAM:In these consolidated appeals, we granted Appellants’ petitions for rehearing in order to permit them to file their informal briefs, which we have now received and reviewed. We affirm the district court’s orders. In case Nos. 96-2610, 96-2698, 96-2699, 96-2720, 96-2721, 96- 2771, the Appellants appeal the district court’s orders granting the Navy summary judgment in their civil action filed under the Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a (1994), and denying their motion styled “Motion for Status Conference Hearing and Rule 60(b) Errors Correction.” In Nos. 97-1859 and 97-1860, the Appellants appeal only the denial of the same motion. We have again reviewed the record and the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the orders onthe reasoning of the district court. No. 96-2610, Myers v. Department of the Navy , No. CA-93-1064-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1996; May 27, 1997); No. 96-2698, Pinckney v. Department of the Navy, No. CA93-1914-2-18 (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1996; May 27, 1997); No. 96-2699, Fabers v. Department of the Navy, No. CA-93-3206-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1996; May 27, 1997); No. 96-2720, Riley v. Department of the Navy , No. CA-93-2410-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1996; May 27, 1997); No. 96-2721, Chavis v. Department of the Navy, No. CA-93- 2410-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1996; May 27, 1997); No. 96-2771, Reed v. Department of the Navy, No. CA-93-3293-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Sept.8 18, 1996; May 27, 1997); No. 97-1859, Williams v. Department of the Navy , No. CA-93-2410-2-18AJ (D.S.C. May 27, 1997); No. 97-1860, Moore v. Department of the Navy , No. CA-93-3206-2-18AJ (D.S.C. May 27, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED