Case Name: Charles William LEVY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; Katherine K. Hanley, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors; Lerner Corporation; Vicky Murabito, Manager of Morningside Apartments, Defendants-Appellees, and John Turner, Movant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-02
Citations: 61 F. App'x 896
Docket Number: No. 03-1200
Parties: Charles William LEVY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; Katherine K. Hanley, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors; Lerner Corporation; Vicky Murabito, Manager of Morningside Apartments, Defendants-Appellees, and John Turner, Movant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 61
Pages: 896–897

Head Matter:
Charles William LEVY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; Katherine K. Hanley, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors; Lerner Corporation; Vicky Murabito, Manager of Morningside Apartments, Defendants-Appellees, and John Turner, Movant-Appellee.
No. 03-1200.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 24, 2003.
Decided May 2, 2003.
Charles William Levy, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Everett Rose, III, County Attorney’s Office, Fairfax, Virginia; Ina Christina Charvet, Lawson & Frank, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles William Levy appeals from the district court's orders dismissing his civil complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Levy v. County of Fairfax, No. CA-02-1726-A (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 13, 2003 & entered Jan. 17, 2003; filed Jan. 31, 2003 & entered Feb. 4, 2003). 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.