
    ESTATE OF Louis DALENKO, by Personal Representative and Executrix; Carol Bennett, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Gilbert W. FILE, IV, Wake Cty. Clerks of Superior Court, and individually; Robert Monroe; Lou A. Newman, Individually; Corinne G. Russell, Wake Cty. Deputy Attorney; Narly Cashwell, Sr.; John C. Martin, Justice of NC, COA; Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., Justice of NC COA; Martha A. Geer, Justice of NC COA; Unnamed Research Assistant, Each also in their individual capacities; Wake County; Narly L. Cashwell; Donald W. Stephens; Henry W. Hight, Jr., individually; Janet I. Pueschel; Michael R. Ferrell, Wake Cty Attorney, and individually; Hugh Stevens, d/b/a G, H & S Everett, individually; Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens, LLP; the News and Observer Publishing Company, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-2223.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 7, 2006.
    Decided June 23, 2006.
    
      Estate of Louis Dalenko; Carol Bennett, Appellants Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary S. Parsons, Patricia Pursell Kerner, Hannah Gray Styron, Troutman & Sanders, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Michael R. Ferrell, Corinne Griffin Russell, County Attorney’s Office for the County of Wake, Raleigh, North Carolina; Hugh Stevens, Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Carol Bennett and the Estate of Louis Dalenko appeal the district court’s orders and judgments dismissing the complaints and sanctioning Bennett. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dalenko v. File, Nos. CA-03-550-5-H; CA-04-301-5-H; CA-04-438-5-H; CA-04-811-5-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 2004; Mar. 2, 2004; Dec. 21, 2004; Mar. 16, 2005; Aug. 26, 2005). 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  