Attorney's Fees: The court affirms the district court's denial of plaintiff's request for attorney's fees because plaintiff 'did not 'substantially prevail' in his opposition to 's summary judgment motion,' and, therefore, 'is not entitled to attorney's fees connected with that endeavor.' The court also 'decline to explore' plaintiff's argument that 'he is entitled to the fees associated with filing his complaint.

Exemption 6: The Fourth Circuit 'affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to ' because the court 'conclude that the district court 'had an adequate factual basis for the decision rendered' and that its decision was not clearly erroneous.' Regarding the privacy interest, the court notes that defendant 'can withhold data if it demonstrates a likelihood that releasing the information would connect private records to specific individuals.' The Fourth Circuit relates that, 't issue here are elements of data that are not unique identifiers, but that, according to, function as unique identifiers because they can be combined with other available information to identify specific individuals.' The court notes that 'he district court agreed with 's categorization of this data and its decision to deny disclosure because of the possibility that the data could be used to single out certain beneficiaries.' The Fourth Circuit holds that 'he record provided to this Court demonstrates that thoroughly analyzed and demonstrated the methods through which the withheld data could lead to the identification of specific individuals.' Moreover, the court finds that 'arguments to the contrary fall short because they focus on whether singular pieces of withheld data ( e.g., month and day of birth, SSI application date, etc.) could lead to the identification of individuals rather than on whether those pieces of data working in combination with other information could assist in such identification.' Regarding the public interest in disclosure, the court notes that plaintiff's 'intent to evaluate 's administration of various benefit programs fits within FOIA's goal of 'shed light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties,'' but plaintiff 'fails to satisfactorily articulate how the withheld data aids his pursuits.' Therefore, the court is 'convinced that any interest the public may have in the withheld data is sufficiently outweighed by the privacy interests that would be compromised by such disclosure.'.

as to their administration of certain of their benefit programs, and the relevant inter-agency interactions.''Дisposition: Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment and denial of attorney's fees and costs Re:В Request for information concerning ''the workings inside.

A 'review of these files yielded no records responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request.' Additionally, 'one of these files contained any statements as set out in the FOIA request that is in litigation, nor did they contain any statements as ordered to be provided by this court, if they existed.' Finally, while the defendant instituted a new case management system during the tenure of the plaintiff's criminal case, ' case was still pending during the migration and his case information would have been transferred into LIONS.' 'bsent 'countervailing evidence or apparent inconsistency of proof,' these declarations 'suffice to demonstrate compliance with the obligations imposed by the FOIA.'' Adequacy of the Search: The court concludes that 'EOUSA's supporting declarations explain in reasonable detail the scope and method of the searches for responsive records.' EOUSA searched LIONS (its case management/tracking system) using the plaintiff's name and the names of the seven individuals specified in his FOIA request.Re:В Request for records pertaining to plaintiff and information obtained from third parties during criminal proceedings brought against plaintiff Disposition: Granting defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment

Memoranda test