Case Name: Rosemary SUSKO, d/b/a Rosemont Manor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WEIRTON; Mark Harris; William Miller; Rod Rosnick; Jim McHenry; Gary Dufour; Dewey Guida; Tom Virtue; Bob Arango; Bob Mrvos; Ethel Yeager, as Executrix of the Estate of John Yeager, deceased, substituted as a party in place of John Yeager, Defendants-Appellees, and John Yeager, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-18
Citations: 443 F. App'x 805
Docket Number: No. 11-1114
Parties: Rosemary SUSKO, d/b/a Rosemont Manor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WEIRTON; Mark Harris; William Miller; Rod Rosnick; Jim McHenry; Gary Dufour; Dewey Guida; Tom Virtue; Bob Arango; Bob Mrvos; Ethel Yeager, as Executrix of the Estate of John Yeager, deceased, substituted as a party in place of John Yeager, Defendants-Appellees, and John Yeager, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 805–805

Head Matter:
Rosemary SUSKO, d/b/a Rosemont Manor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WEIRTON; Mark Harris; William Miller; Rod Rosnick; Jim McHenry; Gary Dufour; Dewey Guida; Tom Virtue; Bob Arango; Bob Mrvos; Ethel Yeager, as Executrix of the Estate of John Yeager, deceased, substituted as a party in place of John Yeager, Defendants-Appellees, and John Yeager, Defendant.
No. 11-1114.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 10, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 18, 2011.
Paul J. Harris, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. David L. Wyant, Bailey & Wyant, P.L.L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rosemary Susko appeals the district court's judgment granting Defendants' summary judgment motions on her 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) claims against them. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. See Susko v. City of Weirton, No. 5:09-cv-00001-FPS-JES, 2011 WL 221825 (N.D.W.Va. Jan. 20, 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.