
    Michael O’HANLON; Janette O’Hanlon; Cap A.M. Corp.; John Birl; Felix Roma; Ronald Roma; Marie Roma, v. CITY OF CHESTER; Department of Public Safety for the City of Chester; City Council of the City of Chester; Dominic Pileggi, Mayor and Councilman for the City of Chester; Peter Seltzer, Councilman and Director of Department of Public Safety for the City of Chester; Calvin Joyner, Director of License and Inspection for the Department of Public Safety for the City of Chester; Monir Z. Ahmed, Director of License and Inspection for the Department of Public Safety for the City of Chester; Joseph Farrell, Deputy Director of License and Inspection for the Department of Public Safety for the City of Chester; Glenn Holt, Building Inspector for the City of Chester; Robert Leach, Housing Inspector for the City of Chester; Thomas Boden, Housing Inspector for the City of Chester; Irvin Lawrence, Housing Inspector for the City of Chester; Edward Brown, Building Official for the City of Chester; Joseph Cliffe, Chief of Bureau of Fire for the City of Chester; Thomas Groch, Electrical Inspector for the City of Chester; Robert Wilson, Plumbing Inspector for the City of Chester; Richard Griffin, Fire Inspector for the City of Chester; Leo A. Hackett, Solicitor for the Chester-Upland School District; Leo Gosnell, Chester-Upland School Dist. Cap A.M. Corp., Janette O’Hanlon, Michael O’Hanlon, Appellants.
    Nos. 02-2155, 02-2161, 02-2162.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 31, 2003.
    Opinion filed Oct. 30, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 31, 2003.
    Joseph M. Lamonaca, Chadds Ford, PA, for Appellant.
    Thomas C. Gallagher, Matthew J. Connell, Holsten & Associates, Media, PA, for Appellees.
    Before McKEE, SMITH and COWEN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

The owners of a rental property in the City of Chester, Pennsylvania brought this civil rights action against the defendants claiming that the defendants had violated the owners’ civil rights in attempting to enforce various health, fire and safety ordinances. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the suit. This appeal followed. Our review of the district court’s grant of summary judgment is plenary. Huang v. BP Amoco Corp., 271 F.3d 560, 564 (3d Cir.2001).

Inasmuch as the district court (Hutton, J.) has already set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, it is not necessary to repeat that history here. See O’Hanlon et al. v. City of Chester et al, No. 00-664, 2002 WL 501138 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 27, 2002). The district court carefully and completely explained its reasons for granting summary judgment to the defendants in its thoughtful Memorandum Opinion and Order. We will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in that Memorandum Opinion.  