Case Name: H. Daniel POLLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA; Rolanda A. Johnson, Individually and in her capacity as Assistant City Manager of the City of Roanoke; Darlene Burcham, Individually and in her capacity as City Manager of the City of Roanoke, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-01
Citations: 140 F. App'x 476
Docket Number: No. 04-2084
Parties: H. Daniel POLLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA; Rolanda A. Johnson, Individually and in her capacity as Assistant City Manager of the City of Roanoke; Darlene Burcham, Individually and in her capacity as City Manager of the City of Roanoke, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 476–476

Head Matter:
H. Daniel POLLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA; Rolanda A. Johnson, Individually and in her capacity as Assistant City Manager of the City of Roanoke; Darlene Burcham, Individually and in her capacity as City Manager of the City of Roanoke, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-2084.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 27, 2005.
Decided Aug. 1, 2005.
Terry N. Grimes, Terry N. Grimes, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Guynn, Memmer & Dillon, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia; William M. Hack-worth, City Attorney, Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
H. Daniel Pollock appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on his action challenging his removal as the building code official for the City of Roanoke. Our review of the record and the parties' briefs discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pollock v. City of Roanoke, No. CA-01-1018-JCT (W.D.Va. Aug. 5, 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