Filed: Jan. 31, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10599 Summary Calendar ROBERT L. DRAKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS 136th AIRLIFT WING, Texas Air National Guard; JANET RENO, United States Attorney General; PAUL COGGINS, United States Attorney; PAUL WEAVER, Director, Air National Guard; DANIEL JAMES, Texas Air National Guard, ADJ GEN; JOHN P HONEA, Major; KEITH TOWNSEND, Captain; F WHITTEN PETERS, Secretary of the United States Air Force, Defendants-Appellees. ROBERT L. DRAKE, Plainti
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10599 Summary Calendar ROBERT L. DRAKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS 136th AIRLIFT WING, Texas Air National Guard; JANET RENO, United States Attorney General; PAUL COGGINS, United States Attorney; PAUL WEAVER, Director, Air National Guard; DANIEL JAMES, Texas Air National Guard, ADJ GEN; JOHN P HONEA, Major; KEITH TOWNSEND, Captain; F WHITTEN PETERS, Secretary of the United States Air Force, Defendants-Appellees. ROBERT L. DRAKE, Plaintif..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10599
Summary Calendar
ROBERT L. DRAKE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
136th AIRLIFT WING, Texas Air National Guard; JANET RENO, United
States Attorney General; PAUL COGGINS, United States Attorney; PAUL
WEAVER, Director, Air National Guard; DANIEL JAMES, Texas Air
National Guard, ADJ GEN; JOHN P HONEA, Major; KEITH TOWNSEND,
Captain; F WHITTEN PETERS, Secretary of the United States Air
Force,
Defendants-Appellees.
ROBERT L. DRAKE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
136th AIRLIFT WING, Texas Air National Guard; JANET RENO, United
States Attorney General; PAUL COGGINS, United States Attorney; PAUL
WEAVER, Director, Air National Guard; DANIEL JAMES, Texas Air
National Guard, ADJ GEN; KEITH TOWNSEND, Texas Air Nation Guard,
EEO; JOHN P HONEA, Major; JOSEPH HOOTEN, CMSGT; JUANITA NOKELEY,
TSGT; GREGORY PRICKETT, TSGT; F WHITTEN PETERS, Secretary of the
United States Air Force,
Defendants-Appellees.
ROBERT L. DRAKE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
HQ TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD; JANET RENO, United States Attorney
General; PAUL COGGINS, United States Attorney; PAUL WEAVER,
Director, Air National Guard; DANIEL JAMES, Texas Air National
Guard, ADJ GEN; KEITH TOWNSEND; JUSTE SANCHEZ, Texas Air National
Guard/IO; AMY ASHER, Captain; F WHITTEN PETERS, Secretary of the
United States Air Force,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC Nos. 3:98-CV-1673, 3:98-CV-1674, 3:98-CV-1675
January 31, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Robert L. Drake appeals the dismissal of
three consolidated lawsuits in which he alleged race discrimination
and retaliation in violation of Titles VI and VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d and 2000e (1994), and
violations of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (1996). We
affirm.
Drake is a sergeant in the Texas Air National Guard (“TXANG”).
He alleges that he was denied promotion because of his race,
African-American and that after he filed a complaint of racial
discrimination with TXANG, military personnel retaliated against
him and circulated a list of the names of individuals who had
witnessed the discriminatory acts.
The district court was correct in dismissing Drake’s Title VI
and Title VII claims. Enlisted military personnel may not seek
damages in federal court for violations of constitutional rights in
intraservice disputes. See Holdiness v. Stroud,
808 F.2d 417, 423
(5th Cir. 1987).
The Privacy Act forbids an agency from disclosing any record
to another person except pursuant to a written request by, or with
the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record
*
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.
pertains. 5 U.S.C. 552a(b). The list of persons who allegedly
witnessed discrimination against Drake is not a Privacy Act
“record.” See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(4). The district court was
therefore correct in holding that Drake failed to state a
cognizable claim under the Privacy Act.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
dismissal of Drake’s law suits.
AFFIRMED.