Fox v. Baltimore County Department of Permits & Development Management , 53 F. App'x 244 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2304
ROBERT WILLIAMS FOX; JANE L. FOX,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PERMITS AND
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02-
3074-AMD)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 18, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert William Fox, Appellant Pro Se. Edward J. Gilliss, County
Attorney, Paul M. Mayhew, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Towson,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert and Jane Fox appeal the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of Baltimore County in their action
challenging the constitutionality of Baltimore County’s Code
enforcement process based on an alleged violation of their due
process rights. We affirm.
This Court reviews a district court’s order granting summary
judgment de novo. Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 188, 191
(4th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no
genuine issue of material fact given the parties’ burdens of proof
at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
With these standards in mind, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. We also deny the Foxes’ motion for a writ of
prohibition. See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County,
411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). 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
2