UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1509 LILLIE J.G. LABASBAS; ARNULFO O. LABASBAS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus JOHN E. MOORE; RICHARD B. KAUFMAN; ALBERT R. COLAN; TOWN OF HERNDON, VIRGINIA; MAYOR RUST; JOHN ORRISON; HENRY BIBBER; WILLIAM J. LAPORTO, Attorney; HAROLD O. MILLER, Attorney; GRAYSON P. HAINES, Attorney; JOHN H. PARTRIDGE, Attorney; GARY LANCE SMITH, Attorney; CARTER FOULDS; GARY MALASKY, Attorney/Developer; HOTEL CONCEPTS, LLC; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; VERIZON, INCORPORATED; CABLE COMPANY, John Doe 1 and 2; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; JOHN W. FERRELL, Attorney/Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1906-A) Submitted: November 20, 2002 Decided: December 12, 2002 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lillie J.G. Labasbas, Arnulfo O. Labasbas, Appellants Pro Se. John David McGavin, TRICHILO, BANCROFT, MCGAVIN, HORVATH & JUDKINS, Fairfax, Virginia; William J. LaPorto, Heathsville, Virginia; Harold O. Miller, Oakland, Maryland; Aaron Samuel Book, REED, SMITH, HAZEL & THOMAS, L.L.P., Falls Church, Virginia; John Henry Partridge, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN H. PARTRIDGE, Herndon, Virginia; Gary Lance Smith, Winchester, Virginia; Carter Foulds, Winchester, Virginia; Kathleen Joanna Lynch Holmes, RICHARDS, MCGETTIGAN, REILLY & WEST, Alexandria, Virginia; Paul Steven Stahl, Assistant Attorney General, Chantilly, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lillie J.G. Labasbas and Arnulfo O. Labasbas appeal the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss their civil action alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961-1968 (West 2000 & Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Labasbas v. Moore, No. CA-01-1906-A (E.D. Va. filed May 16, 2002, entered May 20, 2002). We dispense 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 2