Myers v. Dept of the Navy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2610
JEROME M. MYERS; SAMUEL KENNLEY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
LANTZ H. LITTLE; W. L. PACE; REGINALD A. LEE;
JAMES E. YOUNG; ELMER E. MARTIN; UNDRA L.
EVERSON; JIMMIE S. TAYLOR; THOMAS O. WILLIAMS;
NORMAN ROBERT KNIGHT, III,
Plaintiffs,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
PETER CAMPBELL,
Claimant.
No. 96-2698
ARTHUR PINCKNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
NORMAN WITHERSPOON; THOMAS WILLIAMS; CYNTHIA
H. COAXUM; LUCILLE MYERS; NORMAN JAMES
WITHERSPOON,
Plaintiffs,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
FRANK SIMMONS, JR.,
Claimant.
No. 96-2699
ELZINE R. FABERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
WILLIAM L. DIBBLE; NATHANIEL JUST; JAMES H.
MOULTRIE; NATHANIEL JONES; ELDRIDGE C. LEE;
ARTHUR L. NESBITT; HENRY L. MOORE, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
2
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 96-2720
DAVID RILEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
THURMOND HAMMOND; CAROLYN G. CHAVIS; HORACE
WILLIAMS; ODIS C. MOORE, JR.; WILLIAM GLOVER,
Plaintiffs,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 96-2721
CAROLYN G. CHAVIS; WILLIAM GLOVER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
3
THURMOND HAMMOND; DAVID RILEY; HORACE
WILLIAMS; ODIS C. MOORE, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 96-2771
FRANK REED,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JASPER M. BRYANT; CATHIE M. CRAWFORD; JOHN
DINGLE; HARVEY J. DOCTOR; SEAFUS JORDAN; LEROY
M. LLOYD; ABRAHAM J. SMALLS; RICHARD A.
SPENCER; JOSEPH SWINTON, JR.; VENA L. VAIRD;
JAMES L. WASHINGTON,
Plaintiffs,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Defendant - Appellee.
4
No. 97-1859
HORACE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
THURMOND HAMMOND; CAROLYN G. CHAVIS; DAVID
RILEY; ODIS C. MOORE, JR.; WILLIAM L. GLOVER,
Plaintiffs,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 97-1860
HENRY L. MOORE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
WILLIAM L. DIBBLE; NATHANIEL JUST; JAMES H.
MOULTRIE; ELZINE R. FABERS; NATHANIEL JONES;
ELDRIDGE C. LEE; ARTHUR L. NESBITT,
Plaintiffs,
5
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-93-1064-2-18AJ, CA-93-1914-2-18AJ, CA-93-3206-2-18AJ, CA-93-
2410-2-18AJ, CA-93-3293-2-18AJ)
Submitted: September 8, 1998 Decided: October 6, 1998
Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome M. Myers, Samuel Kennley, Arthur Pinckney, Elzine R. Fabers,
David Riley, Carolyn G. Chavis, William L. Glover, Frank Reed,
Horace Williams, Henry L. Moore, Jr., Appellants Pro Se. John
Harris Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
6
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, we granted Appellants’ peti-
tions for rehearing in order to permit them to file their informal
briefs, which we have now received and reviewed. We affirm the
district court’s orders.
In case Nos. 96-2610, 96-2698, 96-2699, 96-2720, 96-2721, 96-
2771, the Appellants appeal the district court’s orders granting
the Navy summary judgment in their civil action filed under the
Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a (1994), and denying their motion
styled “Motion for Status Conference Hearing and Rule 60(b) Errors
Correction.” In Nos. 97-1859 and 97-1860, the Appellants appeal
only the denial of the same motion. We have again reviewed the
record and the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinions
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the orders on
the reasoning of the district court. No. 96-2610, Myers v. Depart-
ment of the Navy, No. CA-93-1064-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1996; May
27, 1997); No. 96-2698, Pinckney v. Department of the Navy, No. CA-
93-1914-2-18 (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1996; May 27, 1997); No. 96-2699,
Fabers v. Department of the Navy, No. CA-93-3206-2-18AJ (D.S.C.
Sept. 18, 1996; May 27, 1997); No. 96-2720, Riley v. Department of
the Navy, No. CA-93-2410-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1996; May 27,
1997); No. 96-2721, Chavis v. Department of the Navy, No. CA-93-
2410-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1996; May 27, 1997); No. 96-2771,
Reed v. Department of the Navy, No. CA-93-3293-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Sept.
7
18, 1996; May 27, 1997); No. 97-1859, Williams v. Department of the
Navy, No. CA-93-2410-2-18AJ (D.S.C. May 27, 1997); No. 97-1860,
Moore v. Department of the Navy, No. CA-93-3206-2-18AJ (D.S.C. May
27, 1997). 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
8