UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2481

STEPHEN F. NARDI, d/b/a Recreational Design Corporation and t/a Recreational Design Corporation, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY; RAYMOND SHO- WALTER; DORIS SHOWALTER; DAVID BOWMAN; ROBERT GRAVES; SCOTT GRAVES; RICK BROWN; MICHAEL B.

WARE; THOMAS EUBANK; HOLMES C. HARRISON; JOHN B. EARLE; NATHAN H. MILLER; GREG ST. OURS; MORGAN E. SCOTT, JR., Clerk, U. S. District Court; WAUGH B. CRIGLER, U. S. Magistrate Judge; JAMES MICHAEL, Judge; J. HARVIE WILKINSON, III, Judge; JUDGE MURNAGHAN; JUDGE WILLIAMS; JUDGE BUTZNER, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-22-H)

Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen F. Nardi, Appellant Pro Se. James Rudy Austin, Leisa Kube Ciaffone, GENTRY, LOCKE, RAKES & MOORE, Roanoke, Virginia; Colin James Steuart Thomas, III, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, P.C., Staunton, Virginia; Kevin William Grierson, JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, P.C., Newport News, Virginia; Holmes Conrad Harrison, III, HARRISON, THUMMA & STARK, Harrisonburg, Virginia; Nathan Huff Miller, MILLER, RALSTON & EARLE, P.L.L.C., Harrisonburg, Virginia; Frank B. Miller, III, Margaret Frances Hardy, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia; John Francis Corcoran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his copyright infringement suit and assessing sanctions against him under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Nardi's motion for default judgment and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nardi v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. , No. CA-97-22-H (W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 1997). We deny Appellee's motion for sanctions and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED