07 William D. Jones v. U.S. Merit Systems (8th Cir. 2007)

Federal Circuits, 8th Cir. (February 16, 2007)

Docket number: 05-3919

Not Published
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/07-william-jones-u-s-merit-systems-27672777
Id. vLex: VLEX-27672777

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Thomas G. Reinbold, Individually, and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children; Joan B. Reinbold, Individually, and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children; Alexandra Reinbold; Brandelin Reinbold, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Wayne K. Evers, Commander, Usn; Ronald D. Holt, Lieutenant, (Usn. Ret.), Defendants-Appellees. Thomas B. Reinbold; Joan B. Reinbold, Individually and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children, Alexandra Reinbold and Brandelin Reinbold, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America; William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense; Diana L. Healy; John M. Schmidt, Individually and as Employee of the National Security Agency; Kenneth Minihan, Lieutenant General, United States Air Force, Director, National Security Agency, in Their Official Capacities; John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, in His Official Capacity; Two Unknown Named Non-Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers, Individually and as Members of the United States Navy; U.S. Department of Defense; National Security Agency; United States ..., 187 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 1999) Individually, and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children; Joan B. Reinbold, Individually, and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children; Alexandra Reinbold; Brandelin Reinbold, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Wayne K. Evers, Commander, Usn; Ronald D. Holt, Lieutenant, (Usn. Ret.), Defendants-Appellees. Thomas B. Reinbold; Joan B. Reinbold, Individually and as Next Friends of Their Minor Children, Alexandra Reinbold and Brandelin Reinbold, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America; William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense; Diana L. Healy; John M. Schmidt, Individually and as Employee of the National Security Agency; Kenneth Minihan, Lieutenant General, United States Air Force, Director, National Security Agency, in Their Official Capacities; John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, in His Official Capacity; Two Unknown Named Non-Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers, Individually and as Members of the United States Navy; U.S. Department of Defense; National Security Agency; United States ...

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Diana Douglas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Defendant-Appellee., 33 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 1994)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Dr. Alcide D. Pellerin, an Individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Veterans Administration of the U.S. Government, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 85-3835. Non-Argument Calendar., 790 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir. 1986)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-3919

William D. Jones, Appellant, Appeal from the United States

v. District Court for the

District of Nebraska.

U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board; Farm Credit Administration, [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees.

Submitted: February 5, 2007

Filed: February 16, 2007

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William D. Jones appeals the district court's1 dismissal of his February 24, 2005 complaint for failure to state a claim. Jones requested deletion of certain statements contained in administrative decisions relating to his request to reopen an appeal of his 1979 termination from the Farm Credit Administration. The United States Merit Systems Protection Board denied the request, and Jones filed a complaint alleging that the denial violated the Privacy Act, 5U.S.C. § 552a. We agree with the district court that the Privacy Act does not apply to Jones's request, because the statements accurately reflect administrative decisions. See Reinbold v. Evers, 187 F.3d 348, 36061 (4th Cir. 1999) ("the Privacy Act does not allow a court to alter records that accurately reflect an administrative decision, . . . no matter how contestable the conclusions may be"; proper form of relief is placing concise statement of disagreement in records); Douglas v. Agric. Stabilization & Conservation Serv., 33 F.3d 784, 785 (7th Cir. 1994) (Privacy Act does not authorize relitigation of substance of agency decisions; Act permits person to contest accuracy of administrative records, but supposes "a distinction between `records' and `decisions'"); Pellerin v. Veterans Admin., 790 F.2d 1553, 1555 (11th Cir. 1986) ("[c]ourts have consistently denied plaintiff's use of the Privacy Act as a weapon to collaterally attack agency determinations"; Act allows for amendment of factual or historical errors, but is not vehicle for amending judgments of federal officials and may not be employed as "skeleton key" for reopening consideration of unfavorable federal agency decisions).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.