Case Name: David M. RUTTENBERG; Judith G. Ruttenberg; Triple D Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Frank JONES, Mayor of Manassas Park, Virginia, in his official and individual capacities; John Evans, Chief of Police of Manassas Park, Virginia, in his official and individual capacities; Detective L, Manassas Park Police Detective, in his official and individual capacities; City of Manassas Park, Virginia; Detective W, Prince William County Police Detective, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees, and Thomas L. Kifer, in his official and individual capacities, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-21
Citations: 375 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 09-1438
Parties: David M. RUTTENBERG; Judith G. Ruttenberg; Triple D Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Frank JONES, Mayor of Manassas Park, Virginia, in his official and individual capacities; John Evans, Chief of Police of Manassas Park, Virginia, in his official and individual capacities; Detective L, Manassas Park Police Detective, in his official and individual capacities; City of Manassas Park, Virginia; Detective W, Prince William County Police Detective, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees, and Thomas L. Kifer, in his official and individual capacities, Defendant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
David M. RUTTENBERG; Judith G. Ruttenberg; Triple D Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Frank JONES, Mayor of Manassas Park, Virginia, in his official and individual capacities; John Evans, Chief of Police of Manassas Park, Virginia, in his official and individual capacities; Detective L, Manassas Park Police Detective, in his official and individual capacities; City of Manassas Park, Virginia; Detective W, Prince William County Police Detective, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees, and Thomas L. Kifer, in his official and individual capacities, Defendant.
No. 09-1438.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued: March 23, 2010.
Decided: April 21, 2010.
ARGUED: Neil Harris Ruttenberg, Beltsville, Maryland, for Appellants. John David Wilburn, McGuirewoods, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Anand V. Ramana, McGuire-woods, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appel-lees Frank Jones, John Evans, Detective L, and City of Manassas Park, Virginia. M. Alice Rowan, Office of the County Attorney for the County of Prince William, Prince William, Virginia, for Appellee Detective W.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David M. Ruttenberg, Judith G. Rutten-berg, and Triple D Enterprises, Inc. (col lectively, "Appellants") appeal the grant of summary judgment against them in their § 1983 suit challenging the warrantless administrative search of a Manassas Park, Virginia pool hall that they formerly owned. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As is relevant here, Appellants' suit alleges multiple federal and state-law claims against the City of Manassas Park ("the City"), its chief of police, two police detectives, and the mayor of Manassas Park. The district court dismissed all of the federal claims with prejudice and dismissed the state claims without prejudice. See Ruttenberg v. Jones, 464 F.Supp.2d 536, 551 (E.D.Va. 2006). On appeal, we affirmed the dismissal of all but one of the federal claims and remanded for further proceedings. See Ruttenberg v. Jones, 283 Fed.Appx. 121, 124 (4th Cir.2008) (per curiam). The remaining federal claim was that the search, which was conducted in conjunction with a multi-jurisdictional drug task force's attempts to arrest several individuals suspected of engaging in drug transactions at the pool hall, was unreasonably threatening in light of its size, scope, duration and manner.
On remand, the district court granted summary judgment against Appellants on that claim, determining that Appellants failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the search was constitutionally reasonable. See Rutten-berg v. Jones, 603 F.Supp.2d 844, 864-70 (E.D.Va.2009). The district court alternatively concluded that even assuming that the operation was constitutionally unreasonable, Appellants had not forecasted evidence sufficient to hold the City liable or the chief of police and one of the police detectives individually liable for the constitutional violation. See id. at 870-73. To the extent that the police chief and the officers were sued in their official capacities, the district court dismissed the claim as duplicative of the claim against the City. See id. at 872. Having disposed of Appellants' lone remaining federal claim, the district court again dismissed Appellants' state-law claims without prejudice. See id. at 873-74.
Appellants now argue on appeal that the district court erred in granting summary judgment against them regarding their claim that the search of the pool hall was constitutionally unreasonable. Having considered the parties' briefs, the joint appendix, and the oral arguments of counsel, we find no error and affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
AFFIRMED.