Court Opinion

ID: 991334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:35:06.474321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:12.023340
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DAVID E. HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of
State, United States Department of
State; JOHN DEUTCH, Director, The
Central Intelligence Agency; DAN
GLICKMAN, Secretary, The United
States Department of Agriculture;
                                      No. 96-1048
JANET RENO, Attorney General of
the United States; ROBERT RUBIN,
Secretary of the Treasury; WILLIAM
PERRY, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; KARL
SPRICK, Executive Secretary Foreign
Service Grievance Board; ANTHONY
LAKE, National Security Advisor;
LOUIS FREEH, Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation,
Defendants-Appellees.
DAVID E. HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of
State, United States Department of
State; JOHN DEUTCH, Director, The
Central Intelligence Agency; DAN
GLICKMAN, Secretary, The United
States Department of Agriculture;
                                                               No. 96-1362
JANET RENO, Attorney General of
the United States; ROBERT RUBIN,
Secretary of the Treasury; WILLIAM
PERRY, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; KARL
SPRICK, Executive Secretary Foreign
Service Grievance Board; ANTHONY
LAKE, National Security Advisor;
LOUIS FREEH, Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-95-1291-A)

Submitted: December 26, 1996

Decided: January 22, 1997

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

                     2
COUNSEL

David E. Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeri Kaylene Somers,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Vir-
ginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss on his tort and employment claims1
and granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment regard-
ing his Privacy Act (PA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
claims.2 We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and
find no reversible error as to the dismissal of"Counts" I, II, and V-X
as being either vague and conclusory, barred by the applicable statute
of limitations, or barred by res judicata. To the extent that Count IV
states only a tort claim, we would affirm its dismissal as well.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
Henderson v. Christopher, No. CA-95-1291-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 11,
1995).

To the extent that Count IV may be construed as a claim for correc-
tion under the PA, we review it with Count III. As there is no evi-
dence that Count IV, as a claim for correction, was ever submitted to
the appropriate agency, we modify the district court's dismissal to
reflect that it is without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Turning to
_________________________________________________________________
1 Labelled by Appellant as "Counts" I, II and IV-X. No. 96-1048.
2 Labelled by Appellant as "Count IV." No. 96-1362.

                    3
Count III, we find that according to the record and the parties' supple-
mental briefs, the Defendants conducted an adequate search and that
all requested, identifiable information has now either been released to
the Appellant or properly withheld under FOIA exceptions. Accord-
ingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment as to
Count III. 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 AS MODIFIED

                    4