UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1033

MICHAEL H. DITTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LEGAL TIMES; AM-LAW PUBLISHING CORPORATION; AMERICAN LAWYER MEDIA, L.P., ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES OF DELAWARE, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1277-A)

Submitted: September 30, 1997 Decided: October 29, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael H. Ditton, Appellant Pro Se. Richard S. Hoffman, Megan E. Hills, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Michael H. Ditton appeals the district court's entry of sum-

mary judgment against him in this defamation action under the

court's diversity jurisdiction.

(West 1993 & Supp. 1997). Ditton alleged that he was defamed in an article

published in the Legal Times on August 12, 1996, and subsequently

republished in at least two other outlets. The article discussed a

lawsuit Ditton had brought against a law firm with which he had

been associated. The district court heard oral argument on defen-

dants' motion for summary judgment, and subsequently granted the motion. Ditton appeals this order, as well as an order denying his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion to vacate the judgment and to compel

production of documents.

The district court, in a thorough opinion, concluded that defendants were protected by the privilege to fairly report on

judicial proceedings.* Ditton challenges the applicability of this privilege on appeal. We have thoroughly reviewed his claims, and

conclude that they are without merit. We agree with the district court's conclusion that the privilege applies in this case, and

affirm the judgment. In addition, we hold that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vacate the judgment on

Ditton's Rule 59 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the

* Ditton v. Legal Times,

(E.D. Va. 1996).

2 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3