Yolanda W. STOKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven BENHAM, individually and in his capacity as Executive Director of the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority; Linwood Crenshaw, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner-(Chairman) of the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority; Mike Mahaney, a/k/a Michael L. Mahaney, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner-(Vice Chairman) of the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority; Johnny Jones, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority; Renee Broxie, individually in her capacity as Commissioner of the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority; Sheila Flowers, individually and in her capacity as Commissioner of the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority; Michael Bujakowski, individually and in his capacity as the Mayor of the City of Hopewell, Virginia; Jasmene Gore, a/k/a Jasmine Gore, individually and in her capacity as the Vice-Mayor of the City of Hopewell, Virginia; Wayne Walton, individually and in his capacity as Councilor for the City of Hopewell, Virginia; Jackie Shornak, individually and in her capacity as Councilor for the City of Hopewell, Virginia; Roosevelt Edwards, individually and in his capacity as Councilor for the City of Hopewell, Virginia; Christina Lumina-Bailey, Individually and in her Capacity as Councilor of the City of Hopewell; Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority, et al; James Vergara, Staff Attorney, Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority; Tina Raatz, Housing Manager, Thomas Rolfe Court, Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority; Greg Pe-Ay, Housing Manager, Piper Square Apartments, Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority; The Hopewell City Council, Defendants-Appellees, 626 F. App'x 431

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yolanda W. Stokes appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stokes v. Benham, No. 3:14-cv-00536-JAG, 2015 WL 4139274 (E.D.Va. July 8, 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.