Case Name: Samuel VILLEGAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TAKOMA PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, a Maryland Entity; Chief Ronald Ricucci; Lieutenant Richard Bowers; Lieutenant Daniel Fishkorn; Douglas Malarkey, in their roles as supervisors and managers, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-01
Citations: 618 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 15-1544
Parties: Samuel VILLEGAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TAKOMA PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, a Maryland Entity; Chief Ronald Ricucci; Lieutenant Richard Bowers; Lieutenant Daniel Fishkorn; Douglas Malarkey, in their roles as supervisors and managers, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 618
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
Samuel VILLEGAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TAKOMA PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, a Maryland Entity; Chief Ronald Ricucci; Lieutenant Richard Bowers; Lieutenant Daniel Fishkorn; Douglas Malarkey, in their roles as supervisors and managers, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-1544.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 24, 2015.
Decided: Oct. 1, 2015.
Samuel Villegas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Darrell Robert VanDeusen, Joseph Garrett Wozniak, Kollman & Saucier, PA, Ti-monium, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Villegas, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accord ingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Villegas v. Takoma Park Police Dep't, No. 8:13-cv-03782-KWT, 2015 WL 1531269 (D.Md. Apr. 3, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.