Case Name: Michael A. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORFOLK; Regina V.K. Williams; Bernard A. Pishko; K. Hannan; S. Michael; E. Zysk, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-23
Citations: 467 F. App'x 174
Docket Number: No. 11-2203
Parties: Michael A. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORFOLK; Regina V.K. Williams; Bernard A. Pishko; K. Hannan; S. Michael; E. Zysk, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 174–174

Head Matter:
Michael A. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORFOLK; Regina V.K. Williams; Bernard A. Pishko; K. Hannan; S. Michael; E. Zysk, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-2203.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 14, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 23, 2012.
Michael A. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Melvin Wayne Ringer, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Scott appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Scott v. City of Norfolk, No. 2:10-cv-00611-RAJ-DEM (E.D.Va. Sept. 30, 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.