
    Cheryl HILL; Ruth Hill; James Walker; Vivian St. Julien; Joseph Houston; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Sid HEBERT; Jeff Matthews; Andrus Gonzales; Brett Broussard; Latonya Perry; Stephen Hill; Matt Smith; Joseph Nissen; Scott Closio; Darren Bourque; Jeff Schmidt; Jeremy Hatley; Erin Irby, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-30301
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 11, 2010.
    James Patrick McManus, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Kenneth Michael Henke, Esq., Patrick B. Mclntire, Oats & Hudson, Lafayette, LA, George Orvis Luce, Oats & Hudson, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The numerous Plaintiffs-Appellants who appeal the dismissal with prejudice of their First and Fourth Amendments claims, and the dismissal without prejudice of them state law claims, were among the members of a large and unruly crowd in New Iberia, Louisiana, that was dispersed by Iberia Parish (Louisiana) deputy sheriffs who used crowd-dispersant gas canisters after their oral orders proved ineffectual. Plaintiffs-Appellants contend that the district court improvidently granted the summary judgment motions of Defendants-Appellees grounded in qualified immunity and dismissed this action.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and the applicable law as revealed by the briefs of the parties and our independent research, as a result of which we are convinced that the rulings of the district court, based in large measure on the March 10, 2009 Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, correctly disposed of this action. Satisfied that the patient and exhaustive analysis of the case confected by the magistrate judge in his Report and Recommendation reached the correct result for the correct reasons, and thus supports the orders and judgment of the district court, we affirm all rulings from which Plaintiffs-Appellants have appealed, including the above-said judgments of dismissal.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     