Case Name: Frank J. MASIARCZYK, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Information and Privacy; U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; Central Intelligence Agency; John and Jane Does, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-19
Citations: 186 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 05-2241
Parties: Frank J. MASIARCZYK, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Information and Privacy; U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; Central Intelligence Agency; John and Jane Does, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
Frank J. MASIARCZYK, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Information and Privacy; U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; Central Intelligence Agency; John and Jane Does, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-2241.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2006.
Decided: June 19, 2006.
Frank J. Masiarczyk, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Edward Johnston, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Frank J. Masiarezyk, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action brought under the Freedom of Information Act and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Masiarezyk v. IRS, No. L04-CV-00085 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 21, 2005); Masiarezyk v. IRS, No. L04-CV-00085 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 3, 2005). 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