Court Opinion

ID: 996616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:53:36.514793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:22.533238
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN R. WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant-Appellee,                                                 No. 97-1896

and

SHERWIN E. LITTLE, Ph.D.; PHILLIP
M. HAMME, MSW; LINDA WILSON,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CA-94-1545-A)

Submitted: September 22, 1998

Decided: October 22, 1998

Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John R. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Lee Gregg, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richard Wayne Sponseller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John R. Williams, Jr., filed a complaint against the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) in 1994 alleging violations of the Privacy
Act, 5 U.S.C. § 522a(g)(1) (1994) as a result of the DVA's refusal to
release drafts of certain documents which were contained in the
DVA's computer files. In a prior appeal, we reversed the district
court's judgment in favor of the DVA, (1) finding that the documents
at issue were "records" within the meaning of the Act, and (2)
remanding for further factual findings to determine whether these
records were contained within the DVA's "system of records." See
Williams v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 104 F.3d 670 (4th Cir.
1997). Because Williams had obtained, during the course of discov-
ery, the documents at issue, we noted that the "entire purpose of this
appellate litigation is to determine whether [Williams] has `substan-
tially prevailed' so that his counsel may collect attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(3)(B)." Williams, 104 F.3d at
671 n.2.

Thereafter, Williams' attorneys and the United States entered into
a settlement agreement in which the United States agreed to pay to
his attorneys $10,097.50 in attorney's fees and costs, thereby avoiding
any further litigation. At the hearing on the parties' motion to approve
the settlement agreement, which Williams opposed, the district court
again found, based on evidence before the court, that Williams had
obtained the documents he had requested and approved the settlement
agreement. Williams appeals.

To the extent that Williams challenges the settlement agreement, he
has failed to provide any legal basis for setting aside the agreement.
And to the extent that Williams maintains that he has not received the
documents he requested, we find that the record supports both the dis-
trict court's finding, and this court's finding in Williams' prior appeal,
that he has in fact received those documents.

                     2
Accordingly, we deny Williams' motion to amend the appeal to
raise additional claims and affirm the district court's order. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3