UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PARKER ANDREWS; JOSEPH N.
BURROWS; LINDA G. FINNELLE;
MICHAEL F. GILLIGAN; LEROY JONAS,
JR.; RICHARD F. MAYER; JOSEPH J.
MCCANN; VERONICA MIXTER; JOSEPH
H. NOVOTNY; EMOGENE N. PRICE;
                                                No. 96-2463
DENISE RANKIN; ADRIAN G. TEEL;
FRANCIS J. ZYLWITIS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Defendant-Appellant.

PARKER ANDREWS; JOSEPH N.
BURROWS; LINDA G. FINNELLE;
MICHAEL F. GILLIGAN; LEROY JONAS,
JR.; RICHARD F. MAYER; JOSEPH J.
MCCANN; VERONICA MIXTER; JOSEPH
H. NOVOTNY; EMOGENE N. PRICE;
                                                No. 96-2465
DENISE RANKIN; ADRIAN G. TEEL;
FRANCIS J. ZYLWITIS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(CA-96-173-AMD)
Argued: May 5, 1997

Decided: June 13, 1997

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and
WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: David Alan Plymyer, Deputy County Attorney, ANNE
ARUNDEL COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Annapolis, Maryland, for
Appellant. Glen Marshall Cooper, David M. Rothenstein, PALEY,
ROTHMAN, GOLDSTEIN, ROSENBERG & COOPER, CHAR-
TERED, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Retired employees who were receiving benefits under Anne Arun-
del County's retirement plan for appointed and elected officials ("the
A & E Plan") sued the county arguing that recent, retroactive, legisla-
tive adjustments to the A & E Plan violated Maryland law and the
Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court
found that Bill 74-95, which increased the retirement age to 60 from
50 and decreased benefits for retirees, violated the Contract Clause,
reasoning that the County could not go back on its contract to provide
pension benefits absent a financial emergency. The district court,

                    2
however, relying on Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 317 (1885), found
that the plaintiffs could not receive attorneys fees because there is no
cause of action available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the
Contract Clause. Furthermore, the district court found that none of the
plaintiffs had standing to challenge bill 61-94, which altered survivor
benefits, because none of the plaintiffs had been injured by its appli-
cation. Lastly, the district court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. Both parties
appeal from the district court's decision.

Our review of the record and the appropriate legal standards in this
case persuades us that the decision of the district court was correct.
We therefore affirm the judgment on the reasoning set forth in the dis-
trict court's extensive and careful memorandum opinion. Andrews v.
Anne Arundel County, 931 F. Supp. 1255 (D. Md. 1996).

AFFIRMED

                    3
