UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1420 LEBON BRUCE WALKER, a/k/a Larry Gene Platt; PATRICIA ANNETTE LEE-WALKER, a/k/a Angie Platt, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus PERRY LONDON, individually and official capac- ity as a Bail Bondsman; LONDON BAIL BONDING INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY COMPANY, London Bonding Agency, Incorporated, and/or Entity, et al; DENNIS COX, individually and in his official capacity as a Bailman and Bounty Hunter, an agent of London Bail Bonding International Fidelity Company, London Bonding Agency, Incorporated, and/or Equity, et al; DENNIS COX, individually and in his official capacity as a Private Detective, Private Investigator, Agent and Owner of Harford Bureau of Investi- gation & Process, Ltd., and/or Entity, et al; HARFORD BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY, Har- ford Bureau of Investigations & Process, Ltd., and/or Entity, et al; DENNIS COX, individually and in his official capacity as an Agent and/or Repo Officer for Toyota Motor Credit Company, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, and/or Entity, et al; TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT COM- PANY, TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, AND/OR ENTITY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 95-1629-DKC) Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: June 24, 1998 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. LeBon Bruce Walker, Patricia Annette Lee-Walker, Appellants Pro Se. David Eugene Furrer, I. Steven Seigel, John Andrew Schruefer, Jr., SEIGEL, TULLY & FURRER, Baltimore, Maryland; Francis Joseph Gorman, GORMAN & WILLIAMS, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael N. Russo, Jr., FERGUSON, SCHETELICH & HEFFERNAN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: LeBon Walker and Patricia Lee-Walker appeal from the district court’s orders denying relief on their civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Walker v. London, No. CA-95-1629-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 1, 1996 and Feb. 21, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3