UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1114 ANTHONY M. AMATO; A. MICHAEL SCOTT, SR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus CITY OF RICHMOND; W. R. SHUMAN, Detective, Individually and as a police officer for the City of Richmond; ROBERT HOSICK, Detective Sgt., Individually and as a police officer for the City of Richmond; TERESA P. GOOCH, Cap- tain, Individually and as a police officer for the City of Richmond; LAUREL MILLER, Major, Individually and as a police officer for the City of Richmond; PHILIP MANGANO, Detective Sgt., Individually and as a police officer for the City of Richmond, MARTY M. TAPSCOTT, Chief, Individually and as Police Chief for the City of Richmond, Defendants - Appellees, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-94-193) Argued: January 31, 1996 Decided: March 5, 1996 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Ronald J. Bacigal, Youth Advocacy Clinic, T. C. Williams School of Law, UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Scott Charles Oostdyk, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Michael J. Kelly, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Kenneth D. Crowder, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Richmond, Virginia; William Joe Hoppe, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Michael HuYoung, Richmond, Virginia; Jane Chittom, SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellants, Anthony M. Amato and A. Michael Scott, Sr., appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on appellants' complaints alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and of various state laws. We have reviewed the dis- trict court's opinion, the record, the briefs, and the contentions advanced by both parties at oral argument and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court on the reasoning of that court. Amato v. City of Richmond, 875 F. Supp. 1124 (E.D.Va. 1994). AFFIRMED 3