
    Mark B. LEVY; Stanley S. Levy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW CARROLLTON; Andrew C. Hanko, Mayor of the City of New Carrollton; John A. Schaffer, Councilmember for the City of New Carrollton; New Carrollton City Police Department; David Rice, Chief of Police for City of New Carrollton; David Ladd, Police Officer for the City of New Carrollton; Mark Butler, Police Officer for City of New Carrollton; Vincent Lyew, Police Officer for City of New Carrollton; Amy Burkett, (nee Shellenberger), Police Officer for City of New Carrollton; Sarah C. Potter, Council Member for City of New Carrollton; Raymond J. Garvey, Council Member for City of New Carrollton; Rose Marie Hurdle, Council Member for the City of New Carrollton; Jeffrey M. Hughes, Code Enforcer for City of New Carrollton, Defendants-Appellees. Mark B. Levy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of New Carrollton; David Ladd, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 10-2009, 10-2011.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 30, 2011.
    Decided: Jan. 30, 2012.
    Michael Wein, Law Offices of Michael Wein, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellants. Kevin Karpinski, Michael B. Rynd, Kar-pinski, Colaresi & Karp, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before GREGORY, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

These consolidated appeals arise out of a series of lawsuits stemming from multiple incidents that involved Appellants Mark Levy and Stanley Levy, police officers, a city code enforcement officer, and numerous other city officials. The Levys asserted causes of action for malicious prosecution, violation of state constitutional rights, false imprisonment, violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), violations of the civil Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (2006), trespass to land, trespass to chattels, civil conspiracy, malicious use of process, and vicarious liability. In appeal No. 10-2009, the Levys appeal the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment to defendants, granting defendants’ motion to exclude the Levys’ expert witnesses, and denying their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint; the court’s subsequent order denying their motion for reconsideration; and the court’s judgment entered after a jury verdict for the defendants. In appeal No. 10-2011, Mark Levy appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint.

We have thoroughly reviewed the extensive record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Levy v. City of New Carrolton, Nos. 8:06-cv-02598-DKC; 8:06-cv-03304-DKC; 8:09-cv-02552-DKC (D.Md. Mar. 17, 2009; June 11, 2009; July 30, 2010; 2010 WL 3190876, Aug. 11, 2010). 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.  