PILCHMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,, (2nd Cir. 2005)

Docket Number: 01-6209

Reporting Judge: NOTFECHA2

Linked as:

Text

UNITED S TATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE S ECOND CIRCUIT S UMMARY ORDER THIS S UMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A S UBS EQUENT S TAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CAS E, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOS ES OF COLLATERAL ES TOPPEL OR RES J UDICATA.

At a s t a t e d t e rm o f t h e Un it e d St at e s Co u rt o f Ap pe a ls fo r t h e Se c on d Circ uit , h e ld at t he Unit e d St ate s Cou rt ho us e , Fole y S quare , in t h e Ci t y o f Ne w Yo rk , o n t h e 2 n d da y o f J u ly , t wo t h o u s a n d t w o .

PRESENT:

JO S Ã‰ A CABR ANE S .

ROS E M AR Y S. PO OLE R ROBE RT A KATZMANN .

Circuit Ju d ges , ROBE RT PILCHMAN, Pla in tiff-A pp ella n t, v. No. 01-6209

DEPARTMENT O F DE F E NS E , Defend ant-Appe lle e .

ROBE RT PILCHMAN, Pro S e APPEARING FOR APPELLANT:

APPEARING FOR APPELLEES : VINCE NT LIP AR I, A ssistant United States A ttorney ttorney, of (Varuni Nelson, A ssistant United States A couns e l, A Vlan inegrad, United States A ttorney Eliot Spitzer, on the brie f), Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New Y Brooklyn, NY ork, Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Nina Gershon, J ud ge).

UPON DUE CONS IDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ UDGED, AND DECREED AFFIRMED.

Robert Pilchman appeals pro s e from the July 25, 2001, order of the District Court dismissing his complaints in part for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and in part for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The allegations in the complaints and the documents attached thereto demonstrate that Pilchman was not qualified for the naval position he sought. W respect to the FOIAand Privacy A ith ct claims, we agree with the District Court that "[p]laintiff identifie[d] no basis" for these claims in the proceedings before the District Court.1 A ccordingly, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the District Court's orders of July 25, 2001, and July 17, 1998.

For the Court, Roseann B. M acKechnie, Clerk by

[1]-. W note, however, that the Navy has indicated that its investigation is complete and that, e accordingly, it will entertain a renewed FOIArequest by Pilchman.