
    Charles VAVRUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph RUSSO, Mark Hendrickson, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-14790.
    Non-Argument Calendar
    D.C. Docket No. 01-08837-CV-KLR.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 10, 2005.
    Ernest A. Cox, III, Jack J. Aiello, Brian M. Seymour, Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, PA, West Palm Bch, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael T. Burke, Tamara Mcnierney Scrudders, Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Mcduff, Ft Lauderdale, FL, George P. Roberts, Jr., Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard & Tuzzio, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before CARNES, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Charles Vavrus filed this civil action against the City of Palm Beach Gardens and various officials of the City. The amended complaint asserts three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:(1) an Equal Protection claim; (2) a substantive due process claim; and (3) a conspiracy claim grounded in the two substantive claims. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on the merits on all three claims. Vavrus appeals, contending that the court erroneously granted summary judgment on each claim.

The district court’s detailed opinion concludes that the Equal Protection claims lack merit because the Plaintiff produced no evidence that he was treated differently from similarly situated persons. (R.1-176 at 27-29.) We find no reversible error in that determination. We also agree that the substantive due process claims lack merit, and find no reversible error in the district court’s determination that the claims are meritless. (Id. at 29-31.) And, the conspiracy claims were properly dismissed because they were grounded in substantive constitutional claims that are meritless.

AFFIRMED.  