UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Deputy City Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:

J. Steven Erie, MALONEY, BARR & HUENNEKENS, P.C., Richmond, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 September 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 Commonwealth Attorney, criticizing the manner in which two other police

organizations had decided whom to endorse, and encouraging the letter'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' personnel 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 Manager 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