Case Name: Donald SULLIVAN; Jeffrey S. Sullivan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; George W. Bush; Joel Hefley, Chairman, House Committee on Official Conduct; Henry Hyde, Chairman, House Committee on International Affairs; John Bargo, Chief-of-Staff, House Committee on Official Conduct; 535 John Does, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-25
Citations: 75 F. App'x 916
Docket Number: No. 03-1611
Parties: Donald SULLIVAN; Jeffrey S. Sullivan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; George W. Bush; Joel Hefley, Chairman, House Committee on Official Conduct; Henry Hyde, Chairman, House Committee on International Affairs; John Bargo, Chief-of-Staff, House Committee on Official Conduct; 535 John Does, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
Donald SULLIVAN; Jeffrey S. Sullivan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; George W. Bush; Joel Hefley, Chairman, House Committee on Official Conduct; Henry Hyde, Chairman, House Committee on International Affairs; John Bargo, Chief-of-Staff, House Committee on Official Conduct; 535 John Does, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-1611.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.
Decided Sept. 25, 2003.
Donald Sullivan, Jeffrey S. Sullivan, Appellants Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Vincent Garvey, Scott Ramsey McIntosh, Teal Elizabeth Luthy, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior District Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Donald Sullivan and Jeffrey S. Sullivan appeal the district court's order dismissing their complaint and denying, as moot, their motion for preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sullivan v. United States, No. CA-03-39-7-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 15, 2003). 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.