
    Wanda SCOTT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Abbeville County; City of Abbeville; Abbeville County Sheriff's Department; Abbeville County Jail; Tommy Hite, Hite Law Firm; Marion Johnson, Deputy Sheriff; Don Morris, Deputy Sheriff; Charles Goodwin, Sheriff; David Beasley, former Governor of South Carolina; Kelly Lowe, Prosecutor; Andrew Hodges, Prosecutor; Frank Addey, Family Court Prosecutor; John Schrier, Police Officer; Robin Rucker, Chief of Police; Eve Wilson, Abbeville County DSS; Abbeville City Police Department; Anna Padgent, Gal Program; State of Alabama, Governor’s Office; Rucker, Family Court Judge; Greenwood Solicitor, Office Prosecutors; County of Abbeville Family Court; South Carolina Department of Judicial Administration; Eric McCoy, of Governor’s Extradition Office; John Doe, of Governor’s Extradition Office; CSX Railroad; Isolyser Co., of Norcross Georgia; Karen Creech, Attorney; Covington Patrick Hagin Stein & Lewis; Timothy Woolston, Prosecutor, Defendants—Appellees, and GWD Prosecutors; Tommy Ferguson, Abbeville County Magistrate; Jailer Trish; Wyatt Saunders, Family Court Judge; Tim Thomas; Townes Jones, Solicitor; Ladona Johnson; County of Calhoun; David Forrester, Deputy, Defendants.
    No. 08-2357.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 21, 2009.
    Decided: May 26, 2009.
    Wanda Scott, Appellant pro se.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Wanda Scott appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Scott v. South Carolina, No. 8:08-cv-00932-GRA, 2008 WL 4862517 (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2008). We deny Scott’s motions to order additional case files and to consolidate. 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.  