UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE L. HOFFMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                       No. 97-1145
JESSE BROWN, Secretary, Department
of Veteran's Affairs,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Max O. Cogburn, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-96-53-1-C)

Submitted: April 21, 1998

Decided: May 19, 1998

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Charles R. Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.
Calloway, United States Attorney, Clifford C. Marshall, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bruce L. Hoffmann filed this action pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552 (West 1996 & Supp.
1998), and the Privacy Act (PA), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552a (West 1996 &
Supp. 1998), seeking full disclosure of an unauthorized audiotape of
Hoffmann and other employees in the Engineering Section of the Vet-
erans Administration Medical Center (VAMC), and an unredacted
copy of a certain investigative report of the Veterans Administration
(VA) Police. He appeals the order of the magistrate judge1 ordering
the Government to provide him with a redacted transcript or copy of
the audiotape and upholding the redaction of private citizen identifiers
from the investigative report under FOIA exemptions. We affirm.2

As the order appealed arises from a ruling on motions for summary
judgment, our review is de novo. See Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Hoffmann first
takes issue with the magistrate judge's finding that the redaction of
private citizen identifiers from the investigative report of the VA
Police was proper under FOIA. He contends that because the VA
Police were not conducting a criminal investigation, the identifiers in
the report were not exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C.A.
§ 552(b)(7)(C) (West 1996). After reviewing the record, we conclude
that the VA Police were indeed conducting a criminal investigation.
We therefore find that the private citizen identifiers were exempt from
disclosure under both FOIA and the PA because the production of
that information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwar-
_________________________________________________________________
1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursu-
ant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West Supp. 1998).
2 The Government appears to contend that Hoffmann failed to properly
exhaust administrative remedies. We find that the Government conceded
exhaustion at the hearing on the cross motions for summary judgment.

                    2
ranted invasion of personal privacy. See 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 552(b)(7)(C),
552a(j)(2), (k)(2) (West 1996).

Hoffmann next contends that the magistrate judge erred in conclud-
ing that he was entitled only to a redacted transcript or copy of an
unauthorized audiotape made of Hoffmann and other VAMC employ-
ees by a coworker with a voice activated tape recorder. Our review
of the record discloses that the magistrate judge correctly found that
Hoffmann was entitled to a transcript of the tape which was redacted
when there was no consent by individual VAMC employees. Because
the tape was compiled for law enforcement purposes pursuant to
investigations by the VA Inspector General and the United States
Attorney's Office, and since the release of dialogue of unconsenting
persons could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy, we find the exemption proper under
both FOIA and the PA. See 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 552(b)(7)(C), 552a(j)(2),
(k)(2); John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 153
(1989).

Finally, Hoffmann maintains that the magistrate judge failed to
address his request for a permanent injunction against the VAMC
from withholding properly requested information. As pointed out by
the Government, there is no right of prospective injunctive relief
under either FOIA or the PA. See 5 U.S.C.A.§ 552(a)(4)(B),
552a(g)(3)(A).

Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge's order. Having previ-
ously granted Appellant's motion to consider the case on the briefs,
we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the material before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
