Case Name: Georgia ARTZ; Lisa Belgarde; Emily Davis; and Sonia Zerr, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-02
Citations: 275 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 07-2523
Parties: Georgia ARTZ; Lisa Belgarde; Emily Davis; and Sonia Zerr, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 569–570

Head Matter:
Georgia ARTZ; Lisa Belgarde; Emily Davis; and Sonia Zerr, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 07-2523.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 14, 2008.
Filed: May 2, 2008.
Bruce A. Schoenwald, Stefanson Law, Moorhead, MN, for Appellants.
Cheryl Schrempp Dupris, U.S. Attorney’s Office, South Dakota, Pierre, SD, for Appellee.
Before RILEY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellants in this matter, Georgia Artz, Lisa Belgarde, Emily Davis, and Sonia Zerr, are all employees of the Quentin N. Burdick Memorial Health Care Facility ("the Facility") which is operated by Indian Heath Services ("IHS"). They seek reversal of the district court's grant of summary judgment on them Privacy Act claim. We affirm.
As part of an earlier Privacy Act investigation, the IHS officer in charge of Privacy Act matters prepared an investigative report, concluding that the appellants had violated the Privacy Act rights of certain co-workers. Those co-workers initiated a lawsuit, and the investigative report was released during discovery in that case. Subsequently, the appellants initiated this action, contending that their own Privacy Act rights had been violated when the investigative report was released in the prior lawsuit.
We agree, however, with the district court that the investigative report, which was filed chronologically by the Facility and was not subject to being retrieved based on any personally identifiable information, such as name or social security number, was not retrieved from a "system of records" as contemplated by the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) ("No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains . "); see also § 552a(a)(5) (" '[Sjystem of records' means a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. ."); Doe v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 519 F.3d 456, 463 (8th Cir.2008) ("Congress limited the type of disclosure that would lead to liability by proscribing only the disclosure of a record 'contained in a system of records,' not the disclosure of all records or information." (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b))). Thus, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Karen K. Klein, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).