Donaggio v. Arlington County Va

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN DONAGGIO,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

No. 95-1842 ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA;

WILLIAM K. STOVER, Chief,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-94-1277-A)

Argued: January 31, 1996

Decided: February 28, 1996

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL

ARGUED: Michael Tarcissius Leibig, ZWERDLING, PAUL, LEI- BIG, KAHN, THOMPSON & WOLLY, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Ara Loris Tramblian, Deputy County Attorney, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Barbara S. Drake, County Attorney, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION

PER CURIAM:

An Arlington County police officer, John Donaggio, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County and its police chief, William Stover, asserting violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Donaggio alleged that the defendants forced him to par- ticipate in a demonstration of uniformed officers at the Capitol build- ing in Washington, D.C., to support legislation banning assault weapons, legislation that Donaggio opposed. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Donaggio v. Arlington County, 880 F. Supp. 446 (E.D. Va. 1995). We affirm.

As Donaggio concedes, Appellant's Brief at 3, the district court "correctly stated" the undisputed material facts. See, Donaggio, 880 F. Supp. at 450-53. Accordingly, there is no need to restate them here. After setting forth the facts, the district court held: (1) "[i]t was not unconstitutional for the County, through Chief Stover, to organize and pay its police officers to demonstrate in favor of the bill if the officers voluntarily and knowingly agreed to do so" id. at 457; (2) because Donaggio "was not compelled to take part in the demonstration at the Capitol, his constitutional right to refrain from speaking was not infringed," id. at 459-60; (3) even assuming that Donaggio was com- pelled to "speak" by being required to attend the demonstration, the defendants were not liable to him because "they were not the authors of the compulsion," id. at 460-61; and (4) in any event, qualified immunity barred Donaggio's claim against Chief Stover. Id. at 463.

Donaggio appeals only the first holding.* He asserts that the dis- trict court erred in concluding "that no First Amendment issue [was] raised" if Donaggio's participation in the demonstration was not com- pelled. Reply Brief at 4. We have carefully considered the briefs and arguments of the parties and the authorities cited therein, and con- clude that the district court properly rejected this argument. Accord- ingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough opinion. See Donaggio, 880 F. Supp. at 453-57.

AFFIRMED