
    Lisa Marie SPICKNALL, Individually, and as parent and next friend of the minor decedents, Destiny Array Spicknall and Richard Wayne Spicknall, III, and as personal representative of the Estate of Destiny Array Spicknall and Richard Wayne Spicknall, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Department of State Police; David B. Mitchell, Individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of State Police; Charles M. Cave, Individually and in his official capacity as Howard County Sheriff; Margaret D. Rappaport, Individually and in her official capacity as Clerk for the Circuit Court of Howard County; Howard County, Maryland, a Body Corporate and Politic; Richard Wayne Spicknall, II, Defendants-Appellees, and Certain Unidentified Employee of the Department of State Police, Individually and in their official capacity; Certain Unidentified Employees of Howard County Sheriffs Department, Individually and in their official capacities; Certain Unidentified Employees of the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Howard County, Maryland, Individually and in their official capacities; Certain Unidentified Employees of Howard County Maryland, Individually and in their official capacities, Defendants.
    No. 02-1305.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2002.
    Decided Aug. 23, 2002.
    Bambi Caroline Glenn, Nowicki & Tira-bassi, P.A., Bel Air, Maryland, for Appellant. Hugh Scott Curtis, Assistant Attorney General, Stuart Milton Nathan, Julia Melville Andrew, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Barbara McFaul Cook, County Solicitor, Rebecca Ann Laws, County Solicitor’s Office, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appel-lees; Richard Wayne Spicknall, II, Appel-lee Pro Se.
    Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lisa Marie Spicknall appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985 (West Supp.2002) action. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Spicknall v. Maryland, No. CA-01-886-MJG (D.Md. Feb. 19, 2002). 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.  