Circuit Judges SENTELLE and GARLAND did not participate in the matter.

A statement of Circuit Judge KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc is attached.

ORDER

Appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto have been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the court in regular, active service did not vote iñ favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

dissenting:

I dissent from the denial of the appellants’ petition for rehearing en bane for the reasons set forth in my panel dissent. See Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 199 F.3d 496, 504-06 (D.C.Cir. 1999). Because the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the appellee, does not establish a constitutional violation, the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity and we should therefore reverse the district court flat out. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). Instead we remand for the appellee to resume his quest for evidence of an imagined wrong. So doing, we waste the time and resources of all involved.