Case Name: Heiko William SUNKLER; Michelle Herron Sunkler, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, Town of Nags Head, North Carolina; Bryan R. Seawell, Individually and as a Nags Head Building Inspector; Courtney N. Gallop, Individually and as a Nags Head Zoning Administrator; Gary R. Ferguson, Individually and as Planning Director for the Town of Nags Head, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-07
Citations: 50 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 02-1629
Parties: Heiko William SUNKLER; Michelle Herron Sunkler, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, Town of Nags Head, North Carolina; Bryan R. Seawell, Individually and as a Nags Head Building Inspector; Courtney N. Gallop, Individually and as a Nags Head Zoning Administrator; Gary R. Ferguson, Individually and as Planning Director for the Town of Nags Head, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 116–116

Head Matter:
Heiko William SUNKLER; Michelle Herron Sunkler, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, Town of Nags Head, North Carolina; Bryan R. Seawell, Individually and as a Nags Head Building Inspector; Courtney N. Gallop, Individually and as a Nags Head Zoning Administrator; Gary R. Ferguson, Individually and as Planning Director for the Town of Nags Head, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-1629.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2002.
Decided Nov. 7, 2002.
Michael B. Brough, The Brough Law Firm, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellants. L.P. Hornthal, Jr., Hornthal, Riley, Ellis & Maland, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Heiko William Sunkler and Michelle Herron Sunkler appeal the district court's order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sunkler v. Town of Nags Head, No. CA-01-22 H (E.D.N.C. May 17, 2002). 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.