Cooley v. Tenet

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1102

GLADYS C. COOLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE TENET, Director, individually and in his capacity as Director (Retired) of the Central Intelligence Agency; JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, individually, and in his capacity as Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; PORTER J. GOSS, individually and in his official capacity as Nominated Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; REGAN V. DANIELS, individually and in his capacity as investigator, Central Intelligence Agency; STANLEY M. MOSKOWITZ, Director of Congressional Affairs, Central Intelligence Agency; KATHRYN I. DYER, Information and Privacy Coordinator, Central Intelligence Agency; ELIZABETH YORK; JULIE LUND, EEO Director, Central Intelligence Agency,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 05-1522

versus GEORGE TENET, Director, individually and in his capacity as Director (Retired) of the Central Intelligence Agency; JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, individually, and in his capacity as Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; PORTER J. GOSS, individually and in his official capacity as Nominated Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; REGAN V. DANIELS, individually and in his capacity as investigator, Central Intelligence Agency; STANLEY M. MOSKOWITZ, Director of Congressional Affairs, Central Intelligence Agency; KATHRYN I. DYER, Information and Privacy Coordinator, Central Intelligence Agency; ELIZABETH YORK; JULIE LUND, EEO Director, Central Intelligence Agency,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-04-1052-1)

Submitted: July 11, 2005 Decided: August 5, 2005

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gladys C. Cooley, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney, Kevin Jason Mikolashek, Brian Eugene Bentley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Gladys C. Cooley appeals

the district court’s orders dismissing her Freedom of Information

Act and employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Cooley v. Tenet, No.

CA-04-1052-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2005; Mar. 16, 2005). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 3 -