Taylor v. National Security Agency

Filing 40

ORDER denying 25 Motion to amend judgment, and granting 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore, this civil action is closed. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 9/30/14. (cmr)

ORI6INAL

F'il irr
l, :, .L'.!- i._clCouR
;,

THE;

THE T'NITED STATES DISTRICT
COT'RT FOR
SOUTSERN DISTRICT
OF GEORGIA
DUBI,IN DTVTSTON

i.r. liv.

20,q 30
s[P
r -L f t (

MICHAEL TAYLOR
I

I S T O FG A .
.

cv 313-045

CASE NO.
NATIONAT, SECURITY AGENCY,

ORDER

Before
and

ludgment
reasons

the

is

Plaintiff's

stated

Plaintiff'

Court

mot.ion

herein,.

s motion

Defendant's

is

Defendant's

rha

Drirr:n,z

documents and i n f o r m a t i o n
the

Natlonaf
On March

A/-1-

radrr6eI

records

about

Security

motion

ls

Information

art,

5

U.S.C.

alleged

to

be in

Agency ("Defendant"

78, 2013, Pfaintiff
to

amend judgnent.

For

the

GRAIITED, and

proceed_nq oro se, broughL rhis

pur.suant to the Freedom of
r.d

summary

INTRODUCTION

Pfa-tncif f Michael TayIor,

s52 (*FOrA"),

for

DENIED.

I.

action

to

motion

Defendant,

lPlaintiffl

submitted

seeking
malntained

"a

Actr
S

5 U.S.C. S

552a,

the

to

obtain

possession

of

or "N.S.A.").
a FOIA and Privacy

copy

of

any

by the Nationaf

and

af1

Security

-*^-^

---r

l1gErrry

. 1 l -h a -

drLtvrl9

lD
LL

a:r.f

if

!qlrrLr!

f r c lJ t
!

r |i ,r, nv f
L

os: v e J u< v j
s rra !rP

u!

orlu/

uJ-rrv!-ar|y

rha

t.

aPPrvv

Iiq-an

lpl:

-D

f^

i Ff 'ql

inr

aq:g^ h
s

+hin.rc

en.,)- :..ai

rrv

I

!sqqf

:t€,

F:.1

j-h.rr.rhf

s,

-r-:r

i^n

qyy

Lr

lqLar're"r

"

rrY

f L^rr.rhj-

e-

t l^e

q

:r,.1

r6
qy

na^

'tl

Two

weeks

exp.Laining

his

that

-6asons

sar-r-it-v

.,ndar
q

Courr on Jufy
n hr
vr

- hc

vrh; ^h

Plaintiff's
?

F : z a m n li o n
f nr

u,'u"e

and>nl

.'r-anf a.l

the

CourL

i n

did

:nnlig6].

-rdonart

as

),

awnl:inin.r

3

for

national

FOIA.

oI

f han

m^\rA.l

n>ri

ff

Pfainci

s^la-rl^ |

noL

:

re'

'n

e'

errmmarrr

j

.lar'cd

irrdamonI

n

ra rl

On

found LhaL FOIA's Exemprion
qFr-artsF

reach

The Court
to

f nr

arr]

-a.l'ra<t

1 .llsn
!

ard

I

Lhe Court

c u ' n " n av
r
J

naf

Dl:inr-rff's

e,

denied

n rr n v e v c J
-o Je
P

FOIA clajn/

:nrliczi

applicabl

I q

:nreF

uPPLufJ

n1?

f-.lr'-

was

Fwcrnnri ^ns

Plaintiff

to

5, 2413.

'1

l4 , , Y 1 , a ru ^urL

responded

FOIA request

J

rhis

Defendant

later,

Exennf

wqS

wheLher

Defendant'S

motion

ori rzar-rz Ar-f

denied
'q

3

quesL-ion

r--a in

rhe

Plaincirf

ion

l-h^1-

l u . ln t i i
aFFir'ra

Defendant can provide
:r,e'rr

s h n r ^ ,i n r y

sulficienL

i-

thar

i.

evidence

ertiffed

tO

an

^--^--ts I ^E^cL'LP
L ' v"

conducted

a

reasonabfe

search

for

roennnei';o

l.\

Dl:inriff'e

prirr:r-rr

A.r

t FOIA contains
q57/hl

/l\

F.\'amnli

nine exemptions,

/-\n

I

r'\r.\f cr-1-s

n:l-

i.\n:l

records
ra^,i6qF

set forth
ear-rrri

at
l- rr

5 U.S.C. S
i nf^rrnai

i /-\n

,.,L - o trvamn-'nr ? 'r.ornoraies
i
i n t o F O T Ac e r L a i n n o n d i s c l o s u r e
^-? contained
!rlulr
in other
federal
statutes

Prwv

i^r--

rdrr^

j-L-qF

r\r--F.+

i ..r'r r-l:ssif

ia-l

infofmat'ion.

s u n m a ry j u d g m e n c o n t h i s
(Order of
--,

^..r

^^f

thjrLy

Aug.
r"r

days.

its

31.).

,.,:c

mr-i^n<

unwarranLed.

The Court

ordered
rnr
Lvr

!7! 6 ^ F F L*s6u. 1
vyqLl

During thaL new filing

period,

:
q

the

that
^..j

ncri
ys

nf

Defendant- filed

a

sunmary judgment add-ressinq the deticiencies

for

first

motion

^ivlt

i-^

second notion
in

20L3, at

1,

ground is

mot.ion for

summary ludgment and Plaintiff

to amend judgment as to his

II.

fi.Led a

FOIA clajm,

SUM}ARY JI'DGMENT STANDARD

The CourL should grant

surmary judgment on-ly if

Lhere rs

no genuine issue as to any maceria.l IacL and rhe movi ng party
is

entitled

judgment as a matter

to

55(c) , Facts are materlaf
che

su_LL under

Liberty
view

U.S.

gsr

facts

574,

(s

! urL

cr

and of

rhe

light

subscantive

most favorabfe

Indus.

States
C. n l - Js
- . v

bancl linrernal

motion for

Fed. R. Civ.

F.

the outcome of

Iaw.

Anderson

v.

4'/'/ U.S. 242, 248 (19S6) . The Court must

Efec.

dIeJU>d

The Clerk

rioLL

qoverning

the

UniLed

faw.

they coufd affect

Co. v.

Zenith

(1986) , and must draw alL

587

favor.

1991) ier

the

in

Matsushita

Ln irs
s!

Lobbv, Inc.,

the

partyr

tne

if

of

v.

Four
qA1

_ -

a

punctuation

has given

rhe

the

non-moving

Radio Corp.,

justifiable

patcels
?d

to

of

ll)e

inferences
prop,

ReaI
1A1f

and ciLaLions

non-moving parry

475

t11

in
fir

omirted) .

roLice

oI

the

s u m r n a r yj u d g m e n t a n d t h e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n r r u l e s f
to

fi le aftidaviLS

consequences

of

or

orher

default.

matari:'c

in

(Doc. no.

12.)

of

onnn<ifin,1
The.refore,

the notice

requirements

f
-

are

r. no

i l- _ - r 9n n
L

m' .u: l !-! c r i : l c
-.

f ^,

GriffiLh

v.

1985) (per curiam),

822, 825 (11Lh Cir.
for

of

in

a rn nrn e ri r i n n
J Jr vJ

^.r- < i-ler:ri

112 tr.2d

Wainwriqht,
are sarisl-ed.

h:<

-*n

a ^w fn- iLrJa r r
u v
,

The rime

-t-^

rrllrL-LLJllD

61.

rrr. prscussroN
A. Standard of Review
Freedom of

"The

Information

mandate for d'sclosure
thar
h^

La^j-

U.S.

-^^r^l-

159,

Sess.,

.\f

I82

agency cfaims

lha

of

S.Rep.

exempcion, and il

l:urden

of

(cicing

5 U.S.C. 5 552 (a) (4) (B));

its

2007) (* lTlhe FOIA cfearfy

review
novo,
proper
of

of

an agency's

see 5 U.S.C.

Michiqan

district
request

F.B.I. |

court

reviews

") (citing

813,

-,

ci*^

41I

89.h Cong.,

to review

courts
places

allowed to

1.t

de novo

on Lhe agency rhe
jnf ormaL_Lon.', Id.

of

United

Stares

489 F.3d 1173, 1187 n. 13 (11ti
a dlstrict

to withhold
but

review.");

is
Civil

an agency's

decision

court, s

information
silent

to

the burden on the agency to

is

as to

Llberties

7 3 4 E . 3 d 4 6 0 , 4 G 5 ( G t r .C i r .

v.

withholding.

No.

broad

by requiring

7t

News-P-ressv.

S 552(a) (4)(B),

de novo, with

-

a

provides that

decision

sLandard of appellate

a

^ rr rq
e
o

wiLhholding

Department of Homefand Security,
Cir.

n - ri f

"The Act requires

defendjng

a

unless explicitly

a ^5r 1Lo |. J
L
r r r

(1985) (citing

10 (1965)).

established

of governmenral infornaLion

be made public

a- | maLerials

Act

de
the

Union

2013) ("The
deny a

FOIA

justify

its

5 U.S.C. S 552 (a) (4) (B)); Bloomberg, L.p.

v.

Board

't/1

Gove.rnors of

of

'41

t'rt.':\-

infornation

is

exempt

from

+hn

agency

s-sLained

552 (a) (4) (B) );
2010) ("IT]he
withholds
l-.rr.lar

Batton

court

^

io

nOVO

has

determine

the matter

-l^o-F.1f

n:r-

the

whether

the

the

district
ro

. o

court

enj oin

(5|'

175

the

l..e

Cir.

has

the
f *nm

eye.nnl-

see 5 U.S.C.
of

agency

from

1n sJch a casef Lhe courL shall

de novo, and may examine the contents

uriihhtrld

S

United

the

in camera to determine whether such records
shell

S

covernment

agency

nn

the

U.S.C.

when the

that,

che

deference;

5

169,

infOrmati

_u r i s d i c t i o n

agency records.

such records

F.3d

dlsclosure,

that

552(a) (4)(B) ("On complaint,

withl^olding

novo

de

501 F.3d
that

no

5 U.S.C. S 552(a) (4) (B));

disclosure.")(citing

States ,

recejves

598

provides

from

decision

decides

Evers,

v.

SysLem,

bu r den . " ) (c i r i ng

its

FOIA statute

. /^

Aoo"r.v/ s

disclosure

Aj strict

information
F^

Federa I Reserve

20-0) {t'TLe

'^^^r/ri^^r"
has

the

rrncler

:nrr

nf

rho

of

or any

a v a m n. rt - L r vi i^ J . <
/
i h

,

") .
B

Analysis
As

noted,

Defendant's

first

the

Court

motion

for

identifiecl

two

deficiencies

an

summary judgment:

(1) Defendant did
not
adequately
Plaintiff's
request
is
covered by
under the Privacy Act; and

explain
that
an exemptlon

(2) Defendant did not provide sufficlent
evidence
showing that
Defendant did,
in fact,
conduct a
reasonable search for Plaintlff's
records.
The

Court

addresses

each

.issue

ln

turn

in

light

of

the

jnformaLion

and author iLies provided by Defendant, che National

Agency, -n -irs second -notion 'or

Security

r-a+6-.-.ti.

eh^rr-

Lhe firsr

-^rva-f

A

rvamnr

i nr

The text

Inrja

of the

rhF

ry.h,-*.

f he

idenLil_Led

Courc

In
in

summary judgmenc.

lor

morion

<

summary judqment.

r

pri

r ha

\r:.-\/

A/-r

Act provides

Privacy

that

fclhe head of any agency may promulgaLe -r,-rles fin
requirements]
to exempr
accordance wiLh starurory
.rnv

svs-prr

of

records

wirhin

;fle^.v

Lhe

frnn

.A,n-l - F - o v a s l o n s g o v e r n a n g a g e n c y r e s p o n s e s
i f rhe sysren' of
requests
for
informationl
Lo
prov.ision
of section
records
is subject
to the
552(b) (1) of this title.
lPr

5

i L,rarr

U.S.C.

552a(k) (1).

S

\^ih -L n*.\-A^i- s rr^rr disclosure
S 552(b) i1).

Acr-ord-nq

information

is

rr

is

aha.l.\f

54I

L.3d
_

rXer,lnl- ior

o'

Exemption

court

Bassiouni

v.

C.1.A.,

:t

documenLs

P/ i \/^^\/

A-l
fnr

rl:eei

F.3d

fiori

FOIA

f Lc

(D.N.J.

plaintiff
and

ihf^rmri-i^.\

the

the
See

2 A A 1)

exempr under

pr i\/F,^\/

A^l

see

(7'

Cir.

tO

245

rp.rrs:I

thaL

Acc.

Lhem LogeLher) ;

a- i-A.rs

FOIA

5 U,S.C-

Privacy

the

rrrrlor

244,

by

FOIA means that

2008) (information

analyze

bolh

1 of

1A
c
A^' I
42 ,440
S, v ^ ., u uvp p . 2 d

LhaL menrion

he.,triqe

informarjon.

scl-en'e, finding

under

q.1 axcr.lnr

J92

lrrnlrr---j :rr:

describe

r .
F

can

srarurory

exempL

(3: Cj r.
i q

FOTA

a

innq

by

also

205

rherefore

c.qt,-rl--.^L\

Lhis

l e8 9
4 .a

t

claSSi=ied

to

covered

same information

af t'd,

incorporated

jn Lhis Privacy AcL exempLion, is Exenpt ion 1of

reference

M:klzrr

552(b) (1),

Sectlon

hand

pursuanL

Lo

D-i \/^^\/

A.-'

a-d

a lso

20A4) \J.
OVef

Of

FOIA

and

r-orr:

:n

tne

Accordingly.
'

nf

FOIA
' r

\T

q

..r-f

A

Dri

i rn

rz:nrr

inr-6llincnn^

am

-he

.lerv

or

subnits

qrr<f

A-i

Tn

for

rac..-s

h

David

Records

'nr:- rtrla

'^c

l i

-l-i.

^f

and

r-nttl

-res-ide
d

nnqi-

nnr

N.S.A.

at

ntth'l

r-----

an
i r-l

Y

those

-la'F..1^nt

Lhe AssociaLe
Mr.

:nd

FO-A

in

of

ir-r

Sherman.

J.

assartr..r

Poficy

A

Lo

asserts

non-ex: stence

ar

s'rnn^rl-

by Mr.

two declaratiors

q

Nl

ExempLion

Defendanr

lae-re

ral-^r.1.

exisLence

-o-nrrl<

Director

-a.r'rast.

pocnrd<

nf

whether

now address

i - F a l - lrY/s rrra n - a
- us

^. ^L-

dlry

wiII

f.,1 pl>in-i€f'q

ano-'es

- ^..

!!

Court

Sherman's

P-ivenrr

A-t

exemptions ove.r N.S.A. information

in Lhe course of litigation,

Mr.

determination

Sherman states

that

N,S.A.'s

nor acknowledge Lhe exisLence or non-existence
informatlon

Plaintiff

on

negarj ve

Lo

response

information

LhaL

accordance with
d-sc.Ios-rre

is

currentLy

and

552 (b) (1)

SecLion

prope-rly

of

nn<il-irro

would

requesL

Order 13525 and is

thus

FoIA.

I h6

Pri

\rr^\r

of

a

EOIA exemption
$^-, -r-c n,sc

.f ''r-larzi |
t-ha

C

rli

.

.^,)-o,r'ro

en,,t-6/.l

rnlf\

in

exempt from

The-reIore,

the

552a(k) (1)

A/-+

conducrs
use

reveal

classified

requesr is also exempt from disclosL,-re under Section
^f

could

of inLeffigence

because

PIainr- i ff's

Executive

under

proper

is

lt

that

rarnr^

I int6"n:l

in

a de novo review

the

accord

context

Lhe detaiLs
't

^it

h'1a1 f

=rianc

,'

^

:^n

of
T

the

L

F,-r^t-,-rl

nationaf

of

subsLanLial

41?

of

weiqht

:^^

r.i

security

Lo an aqencv's

classified
F

an aoencv's

?-?n

^hii-^^\

status

of

11/

r-

ln

/^*hF--iS

i-

^-i-i--lLtraf
\

f ?o

/n

^

/^i-i'--

ufrr\..{ Vri

/ \!f

.:v

cn.r^.ta.l

loo?r

in

n^f

claim

1s

/",rnt-i n^

i.nal

-ha

i*

rr

<el-rrrif

favor

rr

of

warranted

.y..1 :r^

ro^orcl

F^l-

rnr

because

suffici€ntly
that

describe

are maintained

its

search
that

Lerms

exlst)

were

Interior,
v.

56B F.3d

Nicholson,

Attornev

errhicr-j-

-6-r-:i*i-^
o|JP-L-LLc1ttL:j,

.-

998,

of

of

LUyE'Cor

A\r icjenr^

faith,

.^nl

records

about

af

f i1:rrif

search

-

-irn

se

pe-rIormed,

responsive
Chambers

and

records
v.

U.S.

Cir.

2009) (quoting

Clr.

2006),

289 F.

\7.:.\/

App,x

berween
A.-1-

.r!L

did

not

pfajntiff

)
I

^ n r. u
o, l

AcL by

N. S.A.
L IY

j-hI { . . q - -A .
,
..

380

rhe
Lr

averring
(if

such

Dep/ t

of

Mccready

see Lee v.

317,

ranrrinina
LvrrLurrr

r
,/vi h

affjliated
r^r-i.\rc

first

fr .v r! L r !h
-t

r'r19

(D.C.

14

Pri

DefenoanL

(D.C.

Ffa.,

lha

are reasonably

burden unde-r the Privacy

disr,-inguishes
f.r

decfarations

Act system of records.2

le.l

f003
1,

t-{ar^

.

t

Records

Lhat

for

contain

:n..li...,duals
slllP

was

searched. "

S. Dlst.

D e fe n d a n t
rF.o..'lq

to

465 F.3d

for

ics

Lype

Likely

:r]ar^icS

s Privacy

ron-rar\/

bad

Plaintlff's

search

cle-ai

Lhe

files

afl

records

and

:^^F^,

in a Privacy

:--h.tl.'v

YeL!v1t

-12A

)d

the Court noted in Defendant's

An agency may satisfy
rr^"i,-i

nnlia.,\\

hv

F

rf

Sherman's

either

^f

a.zi-lan^a

sLmma-ry judgment

for

iso

nondisclosure

t_ed

B. Reasonabfe Search for

motior

qAA

avnF-l-

fnreinn

Mr.

for

The second deflciency

^

.anri

qF:lo

.\T

Defendant on Plaintiff/

COnLrOVer

hv

Flcn, r

.lafaran^a

the justification

describing
c-6^iTi^

i:n

/l'|vL||194991.91!

sunmary judgment in
Act

Lnr

U.S.

(11'h Cir.

sysLerns of
in1.arm:r

ian

a y r )/
s v.q.L r a . r - l /

tF\
\c.v. d

cucramd

af

records
containinq
foreign
inrel j igence i ntormation.
The
fatter
is addressed in the previous section and falls
under
Exempti-on 1 of FOIA and therefore
afso the Privacy
Act
exemptionsi the fornrer is addressed in thas secl-ron.

firvina

"'l'lp\/:f

favor

of

agency
_^

I'a

reasonable

-^.h^-l

-h^,.?i

r^

reasonably

f t^-+

search of

-^-

if

1^^a-a

prrpose

of rhat

Catabase,

where

be found.

suf f icient

to

Plaintiff's

Cttang
filed

in

FA^r'6erc

EnTA

detaiLed
,

r.,.ts

affidavits

q

r a a - . ) r , ul J
s

-crrr-as_
I

- ha

t-

,-a.c-rd

mr .rI ^ h t
r
Y

f It

..--^rF

raa-

sYus.

l-he

\,,]arrant

the

records

search

In his
in

i n.r

d

about

second declaration,

detail

. His

description

at the agency involved
searchedr

the

in the

histot y

and

rhe search Lerms used Lo search thar
particular

database is
plainti

inf ormaL_ion abour
search

I i.rht

m.\ct

Act

returned
f:rznrehl

the most
ff

no resufts.
a

J-^ pliiht-

i-n f avor

might
These
i Fr

Def endant

of

i^

as

claim.

s MOTION TO aMEND ,I'DGMENT

Eederal RuIe of Civil
a motion

r . - .s
t

declaration,

would l ikeLy conrain

summary l udgment

PLAINTIFF,

first

r - nr n u vrL f-rlr-Y
vv, vd -

database

That

Privacy

IV.

r:nefy

the

dalabase,

consi.lFred

n'.r.

records

a f t a-

and the reason that

reasonably
f .rr:rs-

thal

name of

-Locarion

=--l

his

< .^h

a.\/

the names of the offlces
the

1 ikely

in

such records existed.

search,

to

explains

Sherman describes

incfudes

-^1,--t

ca=

Lhe systems rhat

Plaintiff,

a^r

nrr

Ior

rtl

,1or-tarf

f ound).

Sherman

,ri,-r

nror:esei

t-l^ar,

have been

Mr.

As

or

search

produced

defendants

:

its

rhat

Dr:\/r-,,

S|lTTarV

.1f

1-arl-

concluding

Ft:i*rifr.<

l_L6

. s

-o..rf

r i.'

and

where

av-l:j.ih^

Mr.

nie

seekinq

procedure 59 (e),

amendment of

the

plaintiff

firsr

sumrnary

ir.r.l^nant

^^"rt

l-ha

.r-:'1j- F.l

Pfaintlff's

FOIA cfaim,

" lbl ecause

Plaint-if
.ho

rocerdi-n

f

amended motlon

f:vnr

fails
n.

Delendant

the

Court

rebuL

to

of

Order,

Tn that

ol',

ar.\nr

i n

Defendant's

as

to

position
nafendanf,

::--!-:lijs

summary judgment

for

to

that

noted

veqn.).qc-'

r:l ^,n:r

i.s

aS

Plaintiff's

S

FOIA

.reqJesL -s g-ranLed." ln his motion to amend -*dgmenr, PlaintiII
provide

co

atrempts
h^Lra\rar

i<

chaL rebuccal.

grounds

for

granting

n a w l r r d i q c - o r r c r c c lc r z id e n c e o r
v.

King,

] 6r<

nr

decision.
In

doing

so,

moLjon are
]aw or

of

fact.

2007) (clrations

Cir.

cannot be used to .refitrgate

r
*r- g u m e n t o r p r e s e n t

presented

been

59(e)

errors

500 F.3d 1335, 1343 {ll'r

rrica

have

should

a Rule

manlfest

omitted) . A Rule 59(e) notlon
mr1

lor

hr<<6d

The only

ArLhur

The time

at

evidence that
c ime

rhe

of

ofd

coufd and
previous

the

fg!,_
his

motion/

frusc rar i on
existence

wit h

.li <<et

FvnrcqqFq

DefendanL' s

n o n - e x i s t :e n c e

or

refusa 1
nf

i-t

Lo

i <faCtion

and

acknow-edge

che

.eCOIdS

on

el I i rre-r-c

He demands something more f nan a me.re "concl us i ona ry

Prairci{t.

" A refusal
lrr

Pfaintiff

knor^rn

to admit or deny the existence
:c

:

Cl.\m^r

ra<n/1nqa

.

(oa
Y_:_Y

of records

of f i no
lz_.i___i___.t__:-

nf

-

is

.-anir:

l

331
Collateraf
Counsel- ex rel. Mordenti v. Dep't of Justice,
^
tr ?.1 lqq
efll
n ? / 1 r'
'
Llr. zuuSl I A bromar response neltner
\,
confirms nor denies the existence of documents sought in the
Er-)TA

ra^rra<i

FOIA requesr
/n

a

f-ir

Thi

for

h^q

informaci

il-<

n.inin

in:

a:qo

n',a1rrina:

o n o n r h e G L O | 4 A R X P L O R E Rs u b m a r i n e E
'-----------'---'

1q?A\\

10

srarenent"
^

a n d a L L e m p L St o c h a l - L e n g et h e c o n s t i t u r i o n a l i t y

':l.-rFr

rFsn.-qtr

arguments were not
59{tr)

response,

.iiSe

Lhem

now.

i^n

rarr-,..ti

n-

his

noc

lrom

in

this

Even
t tlr^ a
r
v

Detendanr,

under

5 U.S.C.

U.S.C S 552a(k) (1).

Order,
if

Lhey

Le

it

n - - v I J !ireLl yn- r

yL

fail

e li . l
v

exisr,

motion

Lhese

use a Ru.Ie

tima-\,
o! T
v

ra}-.L
Glnrar

i lL r
I q

g

on r-he merits.

Pfaintiff's

S 552(b) (1)

Plaintiff's

whv

exDlain

and he may not

arguments woufd Jikely
stated

reasons

d.isclosure

ear.Lier/

r^crf

c

records

raised

does

-o

'ro.'on

Do<an-t,r-r+,

the

Plaint.iff

FJr

request

is

exempr

and therefore
to

of

for
fron
5

also

amend judgment

is

DENTED.

v. coNclusroN
Based upon the
ludgment

(doc,

amend judqment
t o C L O S Et h i s

no.

foregoing,
2'7\ \s

Defendant's

motion

for

G R A I I T E D ,a n d P l a i n t l f f ' s

{doc. no. 25) is

summary

motion

DENIED. The Clerk

is

to

directed

case.

ORDER ENTERED at

Augusta.

Georgia.

<l''-->
-

Lhis O/U

September,2014

UN]TED STA

DISTRICT

day

of