Linda Donovan Decker and Donna Decker Flory appeal the district court order granting Jonathan Watson’s motion for summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) action. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Specifically, Watson was entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for him to apply for a search warrant. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Torchinsky v. Siwinski, 942 F.2d 257, 260-64 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, Decker and Flory are not entitled to discovery, including the names of the informants, because they cannot establish a violation of a clearly established law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Decker v. Watson, No. CA-00-1873-A (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 1, 2001; entered Mar. 5, 2001). 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.