Filed: Mar. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2351 WESLEY SCOTT ASHTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ARMY, Office of the General Counsel; CHARLES H. BOWERS, Chief, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Office; JAMES W. MARTIN, JR., Colonel, Commanding Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-00-297-A) Submitted: February 28, 2001
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2351 WESLEY SCOTT ASHTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ARMY, Office of the General Counsel; CHARLES H. BOWERS, Chief, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Office; JAMES W. MARTIN, JR., Colonel, Commanding Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-00-297-A) Submitted: February 28, 2001 ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2351 WESLEY SCOTT ASHTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ARMY, Office of the General Counsel; CHARLES H. BOWERS, Chief, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Office; JAMES W. MARTIN, JR., Colonel, Commanding Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-00-297-A) Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wesley Scott Ashton, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Edward John Martin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wesley Scott Ashton appeals the district court’s order enter- ing judgment for Defendants in this action arising under the Free- dom of Information Act. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ashton v. United States Army, No. CA-00-297-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2000). 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 2