Borden v. FBI
Case Date: 06/28/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-1029
|
June 28, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 94-1029 RONALD L. BORDEN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant, Appellee. __________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ___________________ Before Torruella, Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ___________________ Ronald L. Borden on brief pro se. ________________ Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Donald K. _________________ __________ Stern, United States Attorney, John F. Daly and Douglas Ross on _____ ____________ _____________ brief for appellee. __________________ __________________ Per Curiam. Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his __________ complaint, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 ("FOIA") and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. Plaintiff alleges that defendant constructively denied his written request for documents by failing to sign a receipt for the request. Reviewing the matter de novo, we agree with the district __ ____ court that the request which plaintiff allegedly presented, attached as an exhibit to the complaint, clearly fails to comply with published regulations. See 28 C.F.R. 16.3, ___ 1641; see also 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3), 552a(f) (agencies are ________ authorized to adopt reasonable regulations for presentation of requests). The request is not properly notarized, does not include other information reasonably required to verify the requester's identity, and does not reasonably describe the records sought. See 28 C.F.R. 16.3(2), 1641(b)(d). Since ___ the complaint shows on its face that the plaintiff did not present a proper request, we need not consider defendant's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed. ________ -2- |