Gillan v. US Army
Case Date: 03/18/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 93-1825
|
March 18, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 93-1825 ROBERT A. GILLIN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendant, Appellee. __________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ___________________ Before Breyer, Chief Judge, ___________ Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges. ______________ ___________________ Robert A. Gillin on brief pro se. ________________ Peter E. Papps, United States Attorney, and Gretchen Leah _______________ _____________ Witt, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee. ____ __________________ __________________ Per Curiam. Plaintiff brought a pro se action for __________ ___ __ declaratory relief under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 ("FOIA"), claiming that the United States Army Corps of Engineers wrongfully denied him access to a number of documents which he asked to review relating to a construction permit issued by the Corps. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that plaintiff had failed to raise a substantial issue relating to the reasonableness of the Corps' search for the documents requested. Although plaintiff insisted that the Corps' files should contain additional documents, the Corps' detailed affidavits asserted that it had produced all documents ___ relating to the subject permit and explained the absence of other documents. The court observed that the crux of plaintiff's disagreement with the Corps apparently relates to his perception that the permit was improperly issued, a matter not reviewable under the guise of an FOIA action. Reviewing the dismissal de novo, we agree with the district __ ____ court's analysis and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge McAuliffe's thorough memorandum and order of May 28, 1993. We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court's stay of discovery pending the outcome of the summary judgment motion. Affirmed. ________ -2- -3- |