The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a free-speech case involving a former Chesterfield County resident ejected from a Planning Commission meeting in 2005.

The decision from a three-judge panel came yesterday, four months after the case was argued in the Court of Appeals after dismissal in federal district court.

"We're gratified another federal court has upheld the actions of the Planning Commission," said Chesterfield County Attorney Steven L. Micas.

Robert C. Steinburg, now living in North Carolina, was escorted from the meeting on Oct. 18, 2005 by security after he criticized the commissioners' treatment of previous speakers.

The topic of the public comment period was deferral of a zoning issue related to a subdivision's garage door policy.

Steinburg used the podium to criticize then-Planning Commissioner Daniel A. Gecker -- who now serves on the county's Board of Supervisors -- for seeming dismissive toward the two previous speakers, who had loosely addressed the topic of the deferral.

A heated exchange between Steinburg and Gecker ensued.

After issuing repeated warnings for Steinburg to stay on topic or be seated, then-commission Chairman Sherman W. Litton had him removed from the room. Steinburg was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct, although it was later dropped.

In his 2006 lawsuit, Steinburg claimed he was unconstitutionally silenced by the commission and sought $2.6 million in damages and an order for the commission to remove from its code of conduct a prohibition on personal attacks by speakers.

The commission did subsequently lift the language, though the decision from the Court of Appeals suggests its removal was unnecessary.

Steinburg's lawsuit was dismissed last February by U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne, who found that commissioners had not discriminated against Steinburg.

"We agree with the district court that Steinburg was excluded from the public meeting because of his refusal to address the topic for which the meeting was opened and because of his disruptive manner, and not because of any viewpoint he expressed," said the ruling from the Court of Appeals.

View the full text of the court's ruling at:: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/071181.P.pdf