Henderson v. Christopher ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DAVID E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State, United States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 _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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