Case Name: Robert Williams FOX; Jane L. Fox, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PERMITS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-18
Citations: 53 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 02-2304
Parties: Robert Williams FOX; Jane L. Fox, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PERMITS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
Robert Williams FOX; Jane L. Fox, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PERMITS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-2304.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 16, 2002.
Decided Dec. 18, 2002.
Robert William Fox, Appellant Pro Se. Edward J. Gilliss, County Attorney, Paul M. Mayhew, County Attorney’s Office, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert and Jane Fox appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Baltimore County in their action challenging the constitutionality of Baltimore County's Code enforcement process based on an alleged violation of their due process rights. We affirm.
This Court reviews a district court's order granting summary judgment de novo. Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 188, 191 (4th Cir.1997). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact given the parties' burdens of proof at trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
With these standards in mind, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. We also deny the Foxes' motion for a writ of prohibition. See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969). 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.