Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
The Appellants, current and retired police officers and firefighters for the City of Greensboro, appeal the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the City on the Appellants’ claims related to the City’s reduction and termination of a longevity pay program and the City’s failure to provide retirement benefits for off-duty work performed by police officers. We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment, viewing facts in the light most favorable to the nonmov-ing party. Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423, 434 (4th Cir. 2011). A court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “ ‘[Tjhere is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.’” Newport News, 650 F.3d at 434 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the City on the claims challenged on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED