Andrew Harley Speaker v. US Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11967
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-01137-WSD
ANDREW HARLEY SPEAKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES CENTERS FOR
DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from The United States District Court
For the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 14, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In Speaker v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease,
Case: 12-11967 Date Filed: 09/14/2012 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

623 F.3d 1371, 1386 (11 Cir. 2010), we reversed the District Court’s dismissal ofth
appellant’s amended complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. On
remand, appellant amended his amended complaint and the parties engaged in
extensive discovery. Appellee thereafter moved the District Court for summary
judgment, and the court, on March 14, 2012, issued an order granting its motion.
Appellant now appeals the judgment entered pursuant to that order.
Appellant argues that material issues of fact remain to be litigated as to
“whether CDC exceeded the scope of permissible disclosure under the Privacy Act
by disclosing information without a need to know and disclosing more information
than necessary for public health purposes, thereby supporting a claim under the
“catchall provision of [5 U.S.C.] § 522a(g)(1)(D).” Appellant’s Br. at 4-5. He
also argues that the District Court disregarded Congress’s “intent[ ] that the
Privacy Act be broadly construed,” id. at 5, and that the court “erred by refusing to
credit Plaintiff with a favorable inference based on the destruction of email
evidence by a senior employee of Defendant’s media relations office, from which
it can be inferred that the employee improperly leaked information to the media in
violation of the Privacy Act.” Id. We find no merit in any of appellant’s
arguments. The District Court properly determined that the material facts were not
in dispute, and for the reasons stated in its comprehensive order of March 14,
2
Case: 12-11967 Date Filed: 09/14/2012 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

2012, correctly refused to draw the inference appellant draws from the destruction
of email evidence. In that there is no basis for reversing the District Court’s
decision, it is
AFFIRMED.
3
Case: 12-11967 Date Filed: 09/14/2012 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --