Frank H. Clark v. U. S. Government

Fourth Circuit

Frank H. Clark v. U. S. Government

966 F.2d 1441, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 21228, 1992 WL 131279

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 1992

Docket92-1392

StatusUnpublished

This text of 966 F.2d 1441 (Frank H. Clark v. U. S. Government) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank H. Clark v. U. S. Government, 966 F.2d 1441, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 21228, 1992 WL 131279 (4th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

966 F.2d 1441

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Frank H. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U. S. GOVERNMENT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-1392.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 1992
Decided: June 11, 1992

Frank H. Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

Juliet Ann Eurich, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Frank Clark appeals from a judgment denying relief under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988). Clark complains that the National Archives and Records Administration did not adequately respond to his requests for copies of military and pension records of one of Clark's ancestors who fought in the Civil War.

Clark does not dispute the National Archives' statement that all responsive records have now been released or made available to him. Because Clark has gained access to all the documents he requested, Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Hill v. U.S. Air Force, 795 F.2d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (release of documents rendered FOIA claim moot); Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 953 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("[W]hat is expected of a law-abiding agency is that it admit and correct error when error is revealed"). We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Clark v. U.S. Government, No. CA-91-3419-S (D. Md. Mar. 9, 1992). 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

966 F.2d 1441

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Frank H. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U. S. GOVERNMENT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-1392.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 1992
Decided: June 11, 1992

Frank H. Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

Juliet Ann Eurich, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Frank Clark appeals from a judgment denying relief under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988). Clark complains that the National Archives and Records Administration did not adequately respond to his requests for copies of military and pension records of one of Clark's ancestors who fought in the Civil War.

Clark does not dispute the National Archives' statement that all responsive records have now been released or made available to him. Because Clark has gained access to all the documents he requested, Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Hill v. U.S. Air Force, 795 F.2d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (release of documents rendered FOIA claim moot); Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 953 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("[W]hat is expected of a law-abiding agency is that it admit and correct error when error is revealed"). We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Clark v. U.S. Government, No. CA-91-3419-S (D. Md. Mar. 9, 1992). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

966 F.2d 1441, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 21228, 1992 WL 131279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-h-clark-v-u-s-government-ca4-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack