for this search were: ‘Paul Laird,’ ‘Charles Samuels,’ and ‘Harley G. Lappin.’ ” Id. As a result of this search, 139 pages of responsive records were located and identified, but no responsive records were located within OASG. Id. ¶¶ 31, 32. In response to the detailed information OIP provided in its motion and the Brink-mann Declaration, Plaintiff raises no objection specific to the search made in response to this request. Pl.’s Opp’n at 2. Accordingly, based on a declaration that properly sets forth details of the search terms, locations searched, and type of search performed by OIP, this Court finds that OIP conducted an adequate search in response to Mr. Pinson’s FOIA request that was reasonably calculated to uncover the relevant documents in its files. See Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68 (<HOLDING>). Finally, OIP has moved for summary judgment
holding that summary judg ment was not appropriate where the agency limited its search to one record system without making clear that the single system was the only possible place that responsive records are likely to be located and stating that at the very least the agency was required to explain in its affidavit that no other record system was likely to produce responsive documents holding a month delay in search of a computer constitutional because probable cause continued to exist at the time of the search and no prejudice occurred holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that mjanually searching  records without using specific search terms could reasonably be expected to produce the requested information given  that those conducting the search were familiar with the request holding that reasonably detailed affidavits or declarations must set  forth the search terms and the type of search performed and avert  that all files likely to contain responsive materials if such records exist were searched