Aldridge v. Rossotti ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-10823
    Conference Calendar
    JOHN ALDRIDGE,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    CHARLES ROSSOTTI,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 7:00-CV-131-R
    - - - - - - - - - -
    February 21, 2002
    Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    John Aldridge appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
    Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) complaint against the
    Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).     See 
    5 U.S.C. § 552
    .
    Aldridge contends that the IRS did not investigate or create
    an adequate record in response to his 1999 fraudulent-document
    complaint.     Such claims are not cognizable under the FOIA.     See
    Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press,
    
    445 U.S. 136
    , 150-51 (1980) (agency does not improperly
    “withhold” records that it does not possess); Goldgar v. Office
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 01-10823
    -2-
    of Admin., Executive Office of the President, 
    26 F.3d 32
    , 34-35
    (5th Cir. 1994) (FOIA applies only to information kept in record
    form).   In addition, Aldridge waived, by failing to argue, any
    challenge to the district court’s conclusion that the IRS was not
    improperly withholding agency records.    See American States Ins.
    Co. v. Bailey, 
    133 F.3d 363
    , 372 (5th Cir. 1998) (failure to
    provide legal or factual analysis of issue results in its
    waiver).   There was an adequate factual basis for the district
    court’s conclusion, and, consequently, the district court
    correctly held that it was divested of jurisdiction.     See
    Goldgar, 
    26 F.3d at 34
    ; see also Calhoun v. Lyng, 
    864 F.2d 34
    , 36
    (5th Cir. 1988) (FOIA dismissal reviewed for clear error).
    To the extent Aldridge challenges any of the magistrate
    judge’s orders, those rulings are not directly appealable to this
    court.   Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 
    883 F.2d 372
    , 379 (5th
    Cir. 1989).   We decline to consider Aldridge’s untimely argument
    that the magistrate judge should have recused himself.     See Clay
    v. Allen, 
    242 F.3d 679
    , 681 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v.
    Sanford, 
    157 F.3d 987
    , 988-89 (5th Cir. 1998).
    The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
    All motions are DENIED.