Daniel Cvijanovich v. Secret Service, No. 19-3503 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam. Before Benton, Shepherd, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Freedom of Information Act. District court did not abuse its discretion in declining to review requested unredacted documents in camera. [ May 28, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3503 ___________________________ Daniel Cvijanovich lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. United States Secret Service lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo ____________ Submitted: May 26, 2020 Filed: May 29, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Daniel Cvijanovich appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action. After a careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to review the requested unredacted documents in camera, see Peltier v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 563 F.3d 754, 759 (8th Cir. 2009) (decision to perform in camera inspection is reviewed for abuse of discretion; in camera review should be limited as it is contrary to the traditional judicial role of deciding issues in an adversarial context upon evidence produced openly in court); and did not err in granting summary judgment, see Madel v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 784 F.3d 448, 451 (8th Cir. 2015) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo; summary judgment is appropriate where an agency proves that it has fully discharged its obligations under FOIA). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Alice R. Senechal, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
