Case Name: Thomas E. TILLEY; Investment Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWN OF ABERDEEN; J. Arthur Parker, individually and in his capacity as Mayor for the Town of Aberdeen; Tony Robertson, individually and in his capacity as Town Manager for the Town of Aberdeen; Giles Hopkins, individually and in his capacity as Planning Director for the Town of Aberdeen; Don Walker, individually and in his capacity as Code Enforcement Officer; North Carolina Department of Health and Human Resources; County of Moore; Steve Biggs, former Town Manager of Aberdeen; Bill Marts, former Mayor of the Town of Aberdeen; Samuel W. Fields, individually and in his capacity as an agent of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources; All Defendants, Defendants-Appellees, and The Brough Law Firm, in its capacity as attorneys for the Town of Aberdeen; William Morgan, individually and in his capacity as attorney for the Town of Aberdeen, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-23
Citations: 10 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 01-1192
Parties: Thomas E. TILLEY; Investment Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWN OF ABERDEEN; J. Arthur Parker, individually and in his capacity as Mayor for the Town of Aberdeen; Tony Robertson, individually and in his capacity as Town Manager for the Town of Aberdeen; Giles Hopkins, individually and in his capacity as Planning Director for the Town of Aberdeen; Don Walker, individually and in his capacity as Code Enforcement Officer; North Carolina Department of Health and Human Resources; County of Moore; Steve Biggs, former Town Manager of Aberdeen; Bill Marts, former Mayor of the Town of Aberdeen; Samuel W. Fields, individually and in his capacity as an agent of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources; All Defendants, Defendants-Appellees, and The Brough Law Firm, in its capacity as attorneys for the Town of Aberdeen; William Morgan, individually and in his capacity as attorney for the Town of Aberdeen, Defendants.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
Thomas E. TILLEY; Investment Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWN OF ABERDEEN; J. Arthur Parker, individually and in his capacity as Mayor for the Town of Aberdeen; Tony Robertson, individually and in his capacity as Town Manager for the Town of Aberdeen; Giles Hopkins, individually and in his capacity as Planning Director for the Town of Aberdeen; Don Walker, individually and in his capacity as Code Enforcement Officer; North Carolina Department of Health and Human Resources; County of Moore; Steve Biggs, former Town Manager of Aberdeen; Bill Marts, former Mayor of the Town of Aberdeen; Samuel W. Fields, individually and in his capacity as an agent of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources; All Defendants, Defendants-Appellees, and The Brough Law Firm, in its capacity as attorneys for the Town of Aberdeen; William Morgan, individually and in his capacity as attorney for the Town of Aberdeen, Defendants.
No. 01-1192.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 17, 2001.
Decided May 23, 2001.
Thomas E. Tilley, pro se; Knox Kent Lively, III, Greensboro, NC, for appellants. Timothy Patrick Sullivan, Robin Tatum Morris, Michelle Lee Frazier, Poyner & Spruill, Mabel Y. Bullock, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC; Tyrus Vance Dahl, Jr., Andrew Christian Buckner, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, NC, for appellees.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas E. Tilley and Investment Trust appeal from the district court's orders dismissing their conspiracy, due process, equal protection, and taking claims as unripe and denying their motion for reeonsid eration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tilley v. Town of Aberdeen, No. CA-98-896-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 16 & Mar. 30, 2001). 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.