James Earl Ray v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 859 F.2d 922 (6th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
James Earl Ray v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 859 F.2d 922 (6th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mildred Banks v. United States Postal Service (ca6, 1991-06-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Mildred Banks v. United States Postal Service
6th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
Courts recognizing such review, however, note that it "is narrowly limited to an inquiry as to whether the Postal Service substantially complied with applicable procedures, whether its actions were arbitrary or capricious, and whether its decision was supported by substantial evidence." Id. at 961 . 25 More recently, however, other courts have held that "nonpreference eligible Postal Service employees have neither a statutory nor nonstatutory right to judicial review of adverse personnel actions." Yokum v. United States Postal Service, 877 F.2d 276, 278 (4th Cir.1989); see also Royals v. Tisch…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jerry Gay v. Commissioner of Social Security
6th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
Nov. 12, 2010); see also Gossens v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 859 F.2d 922 , 1988 WL 104963, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (Per Curiam) (Table Decision) (remanding for clarification when the ALJ did not make clear which prior determination he was reopening).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Miller v. United States Postal Service
S.D. Ind. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Parker v. United States Postal Serv., 859 F.2d 922 (6th Cir.1988) (unpublished); Harrison v. Brown, 815 F.2d 1505 (D.C.Cir.1987) (CSRA precludes judicial review of nonpreference eligible employee’s removal).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Barkley v. United States Postal Service
W.D.N.Y. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Yokum v. U.S. Postal Service, 877 F.2d 276 , 278-280 & 281 n. 4 (4th Cir.1989) (“Fausto makes plain ... that by its design the CSRA abrogated even th[e] limited form of nonstatutory ‘review on the merits,’ ” previously thought available) (citation omitted); Royals v. Tisch, 864 F.2d 1565, 1567-68 (11th Cir.1989) (same); Diaz v. U.S. Postal Service, 853 F.2d 5, 7-9 (1st Cir.1988); Witzkoske v. U.S. Postal Service, 848 F.2d 70, 71-73 (5th Cir.1988) (same); see also Parker v. U.S. Postal Service, 859 F.2d 922 (6th Cir.1988) (unpublished), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1959 , 104…
cited Cited "see, e.g." David J. Yokum v. United States Postal Service
4th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Parker v. United States Postal Service, 859 F.2d 922 (6th Cir.1988) (unpublished).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Edna S. Robbin Royals v. Preston R. Tisch, Postmaster General, and the United States Postal Service
11th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at 9; see also Parker v. United States Postal Serv., 859 F.2d 922 (6th Cir.1988) (unpublished opinion) (holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction to review the Postal Service’s disciplinary proceedings concerning a non-preference eligible employee in the excepted service).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Earl Ray
v.
U.S. Department of Justice
88-5299.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Oct 4, 1988.
859 F.2d 922
Unpublished

859 F.2d 922

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
James Earl RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-5299.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 4, 1988.

1

Before WELLFORD and DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and RICHARD B. McQUADE, District Judge.[*]

ORDER

2

This case has been referred to a panel of this court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the the briefs and record, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

3

Plaintiff Ray filed this action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552, seeking to compel the production of certain documents pertaining to Mr. Percy Foreman, plaintiff's former defense attorney. The magistrate to whom the matter was referred recommended judgment be entered for defendant, finding that defendant's refusal to release certain unredacted documents was proper. The district court followed this recommendation, over plaintiff's objections, and this appeal followed. On appeal the parties have briefed the issues, plaintiff proceeding pro se.

4

Upon consideration, we hold the district court's decision was not clearly erroneous. The court's en camera inspection of the documents in question was correct under the circumstances as was the finding that the documents fell within Exemption 7(C) and (D) of the Freedom of Information Act.

5

Accordingly, we affirm for these reasons and those set forth in the district court's order of February 11, 1988. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Richard B. McQuade, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation