UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________

No. 00-50089 Summary Calendar _____________________

IRA L. FRANK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of Justice; JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General, United States of America,

Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (SA-99-CV-132-FB) _________________________________________________________________

September 12, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ira L. Frank, an INS employee, appeals the summary judgment

granted the Government in his action brought pursuant to the

Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(2). We conclude, based on our de

novo review of the record, that the district court did not err in

granting summary judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56.

As the result of an INS investigation, discussed infra, Frank

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. was, inter alia, relocated. His administrative appeal is pending.

The merits of the proceedings are not at issue here. Instead, the

action at hand involves the Privacy Act.

The Government asserted in the district court, as well as on

appeal, that Frank improperly named Attorney General Reno as a

defendant, premised on the Privacy Act’s not giving federal courts

jurisdiction over individuals. Because the Government is correct,

and because Frank has agreed with the Government, we need not

address claims against the Attorney General. See Petrus v. Bowen,

(5th Cir. 1987).

Frank contends that: the Government failed to obtain

information directly from him to the greatest extent practicable

because the investigator interviewed others before interviewing

him; and OPM regulations required his being contacted first in the

investigation. We agree with other courts that have addressed this

issue that an investigator need not in all circumstances obtain

information first from the subject of an investigation. See, e.g.,

Darst v. Social Sec. Admin.,

(8th Cir. 1999).

Here, the investigation concerned allegations of misconduct

involving sexually suggestive and inappropriate comments to

subordinates by Frank. The nature and the circumstances of the

alleged misconduct made it impracticable to interview Frank first;

and the Government's investigatory methods in this case did not

violate his rights under the Privacy Act. See Hudson v. Reno, 130

(6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied,

(1998); Brune v. Internal Revenue Service,

(D.C. Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED

3