
    Ava Maureen SAWYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA; Arthur B. Vieregg, Jr., Honorable; David T. Stitt, The Honorable; Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia; Arthur Sinclair, The Honorable; Circuit Court of Warren County; Dennis Hupp, The Honorable; The Supreme Court of Virginia; Justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia; Clarence G. Williams, Jr., Sheriff; Robert T. Williamson, Sheriff; Estate of Preston Conner; Dean S. Worcester, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 03-2275, 03-2313.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 20, 2004.
    Ava Maureen Sawyer, Appellant pro se. James Christian Stuchell, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Robert A. Dybing, Thompson & McMullan, Richmond, Virginia; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, County Attorney, Winchester, Virginia; John David Griffin, Fowler, Griffin, Coyne & Coyne, P.C., Winchester, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Ava Maureen Sawyer appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendants’ Fed. R.Civ.P. 11 motion for sanctions (No. 03-2275) and the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint (No. 03-2313). In No. 03-2275, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions against Sawyer. See Sawyer v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County, No. CA-03-258A (E.D.Va. July 11, 2003; July 31, 2003). In No. 03-2313, we have reviewed the record and find no error in the district court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sawyer v. Circuit Court of Fairfax County, No. CA-03-258-A (E.D.Va. June 23, 2003). 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  