Case Name: AJ, A minor child by his father Joel D. Joseph; Joel D. Joseph, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael W. SKOJEC; Gallagher, Evelius & Jones, LLP; Bozzuto Management Company; Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, Maryland, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-05
Citations: 161 F. App'x 283
Docket Number: No. 05-1419
Parties: AJ, A minor child by his father Joel D. Joseph; Joel D. Joseph, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Michael W. SKOJEC; Gallagher, Evelius & Jones, LLP; Bozzuto Management Company; Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, Maryland, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 283–284

Head Matter:
AJ, A minor child by his father Joel D. Joseph; Joel D. Joseph, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Michael W. SKOJEC; Gallagher, Evelius & Jones, LLP; Bozzuto Management Company; Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, Maryland, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-1419.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 12, 2005.
Decided: Jan. 5, 2006.
Joel D. Joseph, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellants. Peter E. Keith, Brian T. Tucker, Gallagher Evelius & Jones, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; George M. Church, Miles & Stockbridge, PC, Baltimore, Maryland; Charles W. Thompson, Jr., County Attorney, Joann Robertson, Chief, Division of Litigation, Karen L. Federman Henry, Principal Counsel for Appeals, Patricia P. Via, Associate County Attorney, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court's orders granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Appellants' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action, and awarding attorneys fees to Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See AJ v. Skojec, No. CA-04-4069-1-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 22 & Apr. 22, 2005). We deny Appellants' motion for an injunction as moot. 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