Michael Eugene Pitts v. RICHARD GLASSER, Esq. et al

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1134
MICHAEL EUGENE PITTS; ARTHUR EUGENE PITTS, JR., a/k/a Sean
Michael Pitts; DEBRA LYNN PITTS-RYLES; STEPHANIE PITTS-EVANS
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
RICHARD GLASSER, Esq. et al; BETH VAUGHN, Esq.; HORTENSIA
PITTS; RANDOLPH CARLSON, II, Esq.
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00337-MSD-DEM)
Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Eugene Pitts; Arthur Eugene Pitts, Jr.; Debra Lynn
Pitts-Ryles; Stephanie Pitts-Evans, Appellants Pro Se. James
Arthur Cales, III, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk,
Virginia; Jerome David Crain, Jr., WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC,
Norfolk, Virginia; Farnaz Farkish, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Eugene Pitts, Arthur Eugene Pitts, Jr., Debra
Lynn Pitts-Ryles, and Stephanie Pitts-Evans appeal the district
court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss their
civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Pitts v. Glasser, No. 2:11-cv-00337-MSD-
DEM (E.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2011). 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 of 2 --