UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

COMMODORE LODGE NO. 3,
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE OF
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED;
ROBERT E. WASH; JEFFREY S.
MAHAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA;
MELVIN C. HIGH, in his official
capacity as Chief of Police, City of
                                                               No. 95-2675
Norfolk; JAMES B. OLIVER, JR., in
his official capacity as City
Manager, City of Norfolk, and in
his official capacity as Director of
Public Safety, City of Norfolk,
Defendants-Appellees,

and

CITY OF NORFOLK POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge.
(CA-94-972-2)

Argued: June 6, 1996

Decided: July 22, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Fred R. Kozak, MALONEY, BARR & HUENNEKENS,
P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Harold Phillip Juren, Dep-
uty City Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:
J. Steven Erie, MALONEY, BARR & HUENNEKENS, P.C., Rich-
mond, Virginia, for Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellants are Commodore Lodge No. 3, of the Fraternal Order of
Police in Norfolk, Virginia, and two members of the Norfolk Police
Department who held high-ranking positions in the Lodge. In Septem-
ber 1993, the two officers sent a letter to the editor of their local
newspaper, explaining why Lodge No. 3 had decided to endorse the
candidacy of the Republican nominee for the position of Common-
wealth Attorney, criticizing the manner in which two other police
organizations had decided whom to endorse, and encouraging the let-
ter's readers to vote for the Republican nominee. The letter's authors
identified themselves by providing both their names and their titles
within the Lodge. The letter was published on October 10, 1993.

Soon after the letter was published, the Chief of Police instructed
the officers' commanding officers to tell the two men that, by writing
and delivering the letter for publication, they had violated the City
Charter and the Police Officer's Manual, and that such conduct in the
future would receive a "more severe" response. Both the City Charter
and the Police Officer's Manual forbid police officers to take part in

                    2
political campaigns, other than to cast their votes and privately to
express their opinions. A directive placed in the two officers' person-
nel files regarding the violation was the only disciplinary action
taken.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Appellants filed suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the
City of Norfolk, Norfolk's Chief of Police, and Norfolk's City Man-
ager and Director of Public Safety.* Appellants claimed that the given
provisions of the City Charter and Police Officer's Manual were
unconstitutional both on their faces and as applied to Appellants
because those provisions violated Appellants' rights of free speech
and association.

Appellants and Appellees filed motions for summary judgment.
The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Appellees.
See Commodore Lodge No. 3 v. City of Norfolk, No. 2:94cv972 (E.D.
Va. Aug. 7, 1995). Finding no error in the district court's reasoning,
we affirm.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*The Norfolk Police Department, which was initially among the
named defendants, was later dismissed from the case.

                    3