
    Scott David VEGA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dudley SALEEBY, Jr.; William Henry Johnson; Allison Dean Wright; Harvey M. Dick; Arthur H. Baiden, III, in their capacity as members of the Customs, Regulations, and Cadet Liaison Committee, a Standing Committee of the Board of Visitors at The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina; William E. Jenkinson, III; Douglas A. Snyder; Julian G. Frasier, III; Glenn D. Addison, in their capacity as members of the Board of Visitors at The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina; John S. Grinalds, in his capacity as President of The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina; J. Emory Mace, in his capacity as Commandant at The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina; John G. Lackey, III, in his capacity as Assistant Commandant for Discipline at The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina; Richard G. Evans, in his capacity as Chair, Commandant’s Board # 15 at The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina; Steve Smith; William Bates, Members, Commandant’s Board # 15 at The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-2017.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 1, 2005.
    Decided April 25, 2005.
    Robert R. Black, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Mark C. Brandenburg, M. Dawes Cooke, Jr., Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Scott David Vega appeals the district court’s order awarding summary judgment to Defendants in his civil rights action arising out of a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in his suspension from The Citadel. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Vega v. Saleeby, No. CA-04-23 (D.S.C. July 12, 2004). 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  