Case Name: Richard K. REVELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HUNTINGTON, a municipal corporation; Huntington Police Department; Sergeant Booth, individually and in his capacity as a police officer of the City of Huntington, Defendants-Appellees, and John Does, One through Twelve, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-24
Citations: 379 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 09-1529
Parties: Richard K. REVELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HUNTINGTON, a municipal corporation; Huntington Police Department; Sergeant Booth, individually and in his capacity as a police officer of the City of Huntington, Defendants —Appellees, and John Does, One through Twelve, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 379
Pages: 297–298

Head Matter:
Richard K. REVELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HUNTINGTON, a municipal corporation; Huntington Police Department; Sergeant Booth, individually and in his capacity as a police officer of the City of Huntington, Defendants —Appellees, and John Does, One through Twelve, Defendant.
No. 09-1529.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 20, 2010.
Decided: May 24, 2010.
Richard K. Revely, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Q. Ashworth, Steven Kenneth Nord, Offutt Nord, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard K. Revely appeals the district court's order granting Defendants summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action against them and entering-judgment in their favor. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Revely's motions for appointment of counsel and Defendants' motion to strike Revely's informal brief and affirm the district court's judgment. Revely v. City of Huntington, No. 3:07-cv-00648, 2009 WL 1097972 (S.D.W.Va. Apr. 23, 2009). 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.