
USCA1 Opinion

	




          June 28, 1994         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 94-1029                                              RONALD L. BORDEN,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                           FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                             Torruella, Selya and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ___________________               Ronald L. Borden on brief pro se.               ________________               Frank  W.  Hunger,  Assistant Attorney  General,  Donald  K.               _________________                                 __________          Stern, United States Attorney,  John F. Daly and Douglas  Ross on          _____                           ____________     _____________          brief for appellee.                                  __________________                                  __________________                                                        Per Curiam.  Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his                      __________            complaint, without  prejudice, for  failure to state  a claim            under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.   552 ("FOIA")            and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.   552a.  Plaintiff alleges that            defendant  constructively  denied  his  written  request  for            documents  by  failing to  sign  a receipt  for  the request.            Reviewing the  matter  de novo,  we agree  with the  district                                   __ ____            court  that the request  which plaintiff allegedly presented,            attached as an  exhibit to  the complaint,  clearly fails  to            comply  with published regulations.   See 28  C.F.R.    16.3,                                                  ___            1641;  see also  5 U.S.C.    552(a)(3), 552a(f) (agencies are                   ________            authorized to adopt  reasonable regulations for  presentation            of requests). The request is not properly notarized, does not            include other information  reasonably required to verify  the            requester's  identity, and does  not reasonably  describe the            records sought. See 28 C.F.R.    16.3(2),  1641(b)(d).  Since                            ___            the  complaint shows on its  face that the  plaintiff did not            present a  proper request,  we need not  consider defendant's            remaining arguments.          Accordingly, the judgment below            is affirmed.               ________                                         -2-
