
    STADIUM BOOK & VIDEO, INC., a Florida Corporation, AAPG, Inc., a Florida Corporation, d.b.a. Megaplexxx, Video Warehouse, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee. AAPG, Inc., a Florida corporation, d.b.a. Megaplexxx, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Miami-Dade County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 06-14790, 06-14792
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 7, 2007.
    Luke Charles Lirot, Luke Lirot, P.A., Clearwater, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Bernard Pastor, Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Three adult bookstores brought suit against Miami-Dade County (the “County”) attacking the constitutionality of a County ordinance, which requires that all video booths inside adult book and video stores have a permanently open entrance-way or doorway.

In a detailed 61-page order, the district court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Nat’l Adver. Co. v. City of Miami, 402 F.3d 1335, 1338 (11th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170, 126 S.Ct. 1318, 164 L.Ed.2d 48 (2006).

After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the County based on its well-reasoned and thorough 61-page order. We agree with the district court that Ordinance 96-13 is a proper time, place, and manner regulation, and not a total ban on speech, because it does not prohibit the viewing of sexually explicit materials, but instead, regulates the manner in which such materials must be viewed. We also agree with the district court that in enacting Ordinance 96-13 the County had before it sufficient evidence reasonably relevant to combat the spread of AIDS and STDs, which was the stated purpose of Ordinance 96-13.

In conclusion, because we find no merit to any of the arguments plaintiffs make in this appeal, we affirm the district court’s final judgment entered in favor of the County.

AFFIRMED.  