Watson v. Caldera

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 23, 2001
• Docket: 00-50951
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50951 Summary Calendar

PHILE A. WATSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LOUIS CALDERA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (W-99-CV-312)

April 23, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Phile A. Watson’s Privacy Act complaint having been dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,

Watson asserts the district court erred in granting summary

judgment. In support, Watson contends there are material fact

issues: the five alleged factual errors in his Army military

records that he seeks to correct.

Needless to say, when matters outside the pleadings are

presented to, and not excluded by, the court in support of a motion

to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the motion “shall be

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. treated as one for summary judgment”. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

The grant of such a motion is reviewed as would be any other

summary judgment, i.e., de novo, applying the same legal standards

as did the district court. E.g., Songbyrd, Inc. v. Bearsville

Records, Inc., 104 F.3d 773, 776 (5th Cir. 1997).

The Privacy Act permits a person to contest the accuracy of

administrative records; it does not authorize relitigation of the

substance of agency decisions. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(C);

Castella v. Long, 701 F. Supp. 578, 584-85 (N.D. Tex.), aff’d, 862

F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1988) (Table), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 936

(1989); Reinbold v. Evers, 187 F.3d 348, 360 (4th Cir. 1999);

Douglas v. Agric. Stabilization & Conservation Serv., 33 F.3d 784,

785 (7th Cir. 1994). Each of the alleged factual errors are,

instead, attempts to relitigate the Army’s decision to issue a

general discharge. Again, such an attempt is not cognizable under

the Privacy Act.

AFFIRMED