Case Name: Eric S. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; Thomas E. Gallahue, Individually and in official capacity as agent of the City of Fairfax, Virginia; L.D. Doebel, police officer badge # 1113, Individually and in official capacity as employee of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-28
Citations: 521 F. App'x 215
Docket Number: No. 13-1416
Parties: Eric S. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; Thomas E. Gallahue, Individually and in official capacity as agent of the City of Fairfax, Virginia; L.D. Doebel, police officer badge # 1113, Individually and in official capacity as employee of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 521
Pages: 215–216

Head Matter:
Eric S. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; Thomas E. Gallahue, Individually and in official capacity as agent of the City of Fairfax, Virginia; L.D. Doebel, police officer badge # 1113, Individually and in official capacity as employee of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-1416.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 23, 2013.
Decided: May 28, 2013.
Eric S. Clai'k, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eric S. Clark appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action challenging his conviction of two traffic violations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clark v. City of Fairfax, No. 1:13-cv00295-LMB-JFA (E.D.Va. Mar. 12, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.