Clyde F. Newman, Iii v. ARC ICESPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1202
CLYDE F. NEWMAN, III; GEORGE W. PARR; RICHARD
R. WEHRHEIM,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
ARC ICESPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, INCORPORATED, a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-99-484-A, CA-99-485-A, CA-99-486-A)
Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 23, 2001
Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William T. Freyvogel, ADAMS, PORTER & RADIGAN, LTD., McLean, Vir-
ginia, for Appellants. Stanley J. Reed, J. Bradford McCullough,
LERCH, EARLY & BREWER, CHTD., Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Clyde F. Newman III, George W. Parr, and Richard R. Wehrheim
appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on Counts I and
III of their complaints and dismissing Count II without prejudice
to their ability to sue in state court for severance pay. Count I
of each complaint sought damages for failure to provide reasonable
notice of termination. The district court dismissed these claims
for reasons stated from the bench. The parties failed to provide
a transcript of this proceeding. Because the employment contracts
specifically provided that the employees could be terminated with-
out notice, we affirm the denial of relief on Count I. Regarding
Counts II and III of the complaints, we have reviewed the parties’
briefs, the joint appendix and the district court’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. Newman v. ARC Icesports & Entm’t, Inc.,
Nos. CA-99-484-A, CA-99-485-A, CA-99-486-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 14,
2000). 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

-- 2 of 2 --