Case Name: Jason L. DIEDRICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; Edgar E. Maroney, individually and as City Manager of the City of Newport News; Dennis A. Mook, individually and as Chief of Police of the Newport News Police Department, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-15
Citations: 126 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 04-2399
Parties: Jason L. DIEDRICH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; Edgar E. Maroney, individually and as City Manager of the City of Newport News; Dennis A. Mook, individually and as Chief of Police of the Newport News Police Department, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 112–112

Head Matter:
Jason L. DIEDRICH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; Edgar E. Maroney, individually and as City Manager of the City of Newport News; Dennis A. Mook, individually and as Chief of Police of the Newport News Police Department, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-2399.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 1, 2005.
Decided April 15, 2005.
Jason L. Diedrich, Appellant pro se. Allen Link Jackson, Deputy City Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Stanley Graves Barr, Jr., Shepherd Dean Wainger, Kaufman & Cañóles, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jason L. Diedrich appeals the district court's order denying his attorney's motion to withdraw as counsel and awarding attorney fees to the City of Newport News. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Diedrich v. City of Newport News, No. CA-04-9 (E.D.Va. filed Nov. 29, 2004; entered Nov. 30, 2004). 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