UNPUBLISHED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,

and
4

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 on

the 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