Case Name: Michael Eugene PITTS; Arthur Eugene Pitts, Jr., a/k/a Sean Michael Pitts; Debra Lynn Pitts-Ryles; Stephanie Pitts-Evans, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Richard GLASSER, Esq. et al; Beth Vaughn, Esq.; Hortensia Pitts; Randolph Carlson, II, Esq., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-30
Citations: 472 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 12-1134
Parties: Michael Eugene PITTS; Arthur Eugene Pitts, Jr., a/k/a Sean Michael Pitts; Debra Lynn Pitts-Ryles; Stephanie Pitts-Evans, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Richard GLASSER, Esq. et al; Beth Vaughn, Esq.; Hortensia Pitts; Randolph Carlson, II, Esq., DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
Michael Eugene PITTS; Arthur Eugene Pitts, Jr., a/k/a Sean Michael Pitts; Debra Lynn Pitts-Ryles; Stephanie Pitts-Evans, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Richard GLASSER, Esq. et al; Beth Vaughn, Esq.; Hortensia Pitts; Randolph Carlson, II, Esq., DefendantsAppellees.
No. 12-1134.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2012.
Decided: April 30, 2012.
Michael Eugene Pitts; Arthur Eugene Pitts, Jr.; Debra Lynn Pitts-Ryles; Stephanie Pitts-Evans, Appellants Pro Se. James Arthur Cales, III, Furniss, Davis, Rashkind & Saunders, Norfolk, Virginia; Jerome David Crain, Jr., Willeox & Savage, PC, Norfolk, Virginia; Farnaz Farkish, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Eugene Pitts, Arthur Eugene Pitts, Jr., Debra Lynn Pitts-Ryles, and Stephanie Pitts-Evans appeal the district court's order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss their civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pitts v. Glasser, No. 2:11-cv-00337-MSDDEM (E.D.Va. Dec. 23, 2011). 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.