Case Name: W. Walker WARE, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA; E. James, Officer; Miller, Officer; Sten, Senior Officer; McMichael, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees, R. Michael Amyx, Movant-Appellee, v. P. Steven Craig; Virginia Municipal League, Movants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-02
Citations: 380 F. App'x 274
Docket Number: No. 09-2140
Parties: W. Walker WARE, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA; E. James, Officer; Miller, Officer; Sten, Senior Officer; McMichael, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees, R. Michael Amyx, Movant-Appellee, v. P. Steven Craig; Virginia Municipal League, Movants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
W. Walker WARE, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA; E. James, Officer; Miller, Officer; Sten, Senior Officer; McMichael, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees, R. Michael Amyx, Movant-Appellee, v. P. Steven Craig; Virginia Municipal League, Movants-Appellees.
No. 09-2140.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2010.
Decided: June 2, 2010.
James D. Higginbottom, Kevin P. Shea & Associates, Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeremy D. Capps, Harman, Clay-tor, Corrigan & Wellman, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
W. Walker Ware, IV, appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Ware's action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and Virginia common law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ware v. James City County, Va., 652 F.Supp.2d 693 (E.D.Va. 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.