UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2346 SAM DRAKULICH; JEANNE DRAKULICH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Criminal Investigation Division; D. ARRVIN REEDY; SCOTT G. ADAMS, Defendants - Appellees, and ANNE MORRIS PRICE, Agent, Department of the Treasury; C. STEVEN KARGAUER; JACK PETRI, Dis- trict Manager, Department of the Treasury; GEORGE E. SUTTON; NANCY REINITZ, Ombudsman, Internal Revenue Service; C. A. MOORE; NANCY GIVENS, Examination Division, Internal Revenue Service; SAL BARETTA; AILEEN CONDON; RETTA JONES; N. LAURA HARRISON; MARIE ANNE BORSUK, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-11-A) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. 2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sam Drakulich, Jeanne Drakulich, Appellants Pro Se. Patricia McDonald Bowman, Teresa Thomas Milton, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's orders granting summary judgment to the government on their tax refund suit and dismissing their remaining state law claims against Reedy and Adams. Because Appellants failed to meet the jurisdictional pre- requisites to maintaining a refund suit in district court, summary judgment was properly entered in favor of the government and we affirm. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6511, 6532(a), 7422 (1994). Our review the record and the district court's order dismissing the Appellants' state law claims discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. Drakulich v. Internal Revenue Service, No. CA-96-11-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 1996). We dis- pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3 4