affirmance of his unsuitability determination, which adversely affected him by causing emotional stress and difficulty finding employment. The district court rejected this argument, finding no causal connection between the disclosures and the alleged adverse effect. Id. at 153. We review the district court’s decision granting summary judgment de novo, see Lombard v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 280 F.3d 209, 214 (2d Cir.2002), and agree that the chain of causation between OPM’s disclosures and the adverse effects alleged is too attenuated to prove a violation of the Privacy Act. In order to establish the requisite causal connection, a plaintiff must demonstrate a close nexus between the disclosure and the adverse effects alleged. See Cardamone v. Cohen, 241 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 136 (3d
holding that no federal nexus is required holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony of two witnesses that confirmed but did not elaborate upon the victims testimony would have had only minor impact on the jury because there was little to undermine the victims credibility holding that there was no new and material evidence to reopen claim where newly presented evidence was not accompanied by any medical evidence indicating a nexus to service holding that expert testimony on effect of drug abuse on witness memory would intrude upon the jurys role in assessing witness credibility only because the defendant had not put forth any evidence to show that the witnesses actually used drugs and that thus there was no factual link between the experts testimony and the specific witnesses holding that causal nexus did not exist where there was no evidence that the disclosure had an impact on the testimony of witnesses