
    Jackson J. TEED; Marilyn A. Teed, h/w, Appellants v. TOWNSHIP OF HILLTOWN; The Board of Supervisors Hilltown Township; Hilltown Township Zoning Hearing Board; Gregory J. Lippincott, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Township Manager and Zoning Officer of Hilltown Township; Betty Snyder, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Chairperson and Member of the Hilltown Township Board of Supervisors; Ken Bennington, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Vice-Chair and Member of the Hilltown Township Board of Supervisors; John Bender, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Member of the Hilltown Township Board of Supervisors; John Snyder; Individually and in his Official Capacity as Chairperson and Member of the Hilltown Township Zoning Hearing Board; Timothy Browning, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Hilltown Zoning Hearing Board; Richard Manfredi, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Hilltown Township Zoning Hearing Board; Jeffrey G. Trauger, Esquire, Individually and in his Capacity as Solicitor for Hilltown Township Zoning Hearing Board; Jack D. Wuerstle, Esquire, Individually and in his Capacity as Solicitor for Hilltown Township.
    No. 05-2953.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Argued May 16, 2006.
    Filed May 18, 2006.
    Mark C. Clemm, Esq. (Argued), Seth D. Wilson, Esq., Morris, Clemm, Heleniak and Associates, P.C., Plymouth Meeting, PA, for Appellants.
    Joseph Goldberg, Esq. (Argued), Wendi D. Barish, Esq., Weber, Gallagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires & Newby, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees.
    Before: McKEE and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and LIFLAND, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Hon. John C. Lifland, Senior District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jackson J. Teed and Marilyn A. Teed have appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on their claim that the defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment during the course of a zoning dispute. After a lengthy argument, and after careful consideration of the briefs of the parties, we hold that the Teeds’ arguments in support of their appeal are without merit. We will, therefore, affirm the judgment of the district court.  