Herman Joseph Jaindl, Appellant, v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 948 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1991)Annotate this Case
Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, SILBERMAN and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of appellee's motion for summary affirmance and the responses thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980). The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") properly invoked Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") exemptions 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b) (2), (7) (C), and (7) (D) to withhold certain documents and to redact portions of other documents responsive to Jaindl's request. Moreover, the FBI properly invoked Privacy Act exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j) (2), which exempts the FBI's entire central records system from the access provision of the Privacy Act. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.96 (1988). Appellant, therefore, has received all of the documents to which he is entitled under the Privacy Act and FOIA.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.