Case Name: Kevin HENDERSON; Lisa Richardson Henderson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; Officer Pete, In his official and individual capacity; Detective Clate Jackson, In his official and individual capacity; Officer Joshua Lapier, In his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-24
Citations: 402 F. App'x 787
Docket Number: No. 10-1688
Parties: Kevin HENDERSON; Lisa Richardson Henderson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; Officer Pete, In his official and individual capacity; Detective Clate Jackson, In his official and individual capacity; Officer Joshua Lapier, In his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 787–788

Head Matter:
Kevin HENDERSON; Lisa Richardson Henderson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; Officer Pete, In his official and individual capacity; Detective Clate Jackson, In his official and individual capacity; Officer Joshua Lapier, In his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1688.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.
Decided: Nov. 24, 2010.
Kevin Henderson, Lisa Richardson Henderson, Appellants Pro Se. Louis Paul Ruzzi, Melissa Shane Whipkey, Howard County Office of Law, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court's order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Henderson v. Howard County, Md., No. 1:09-cv-01957-MJG (D.Md. May 26, 2010). 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.