
    Vera C. HARPER, on her behalf and as personal representative of the Estate of Wilson Clark Harper, Deceased; David A. Harper, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a/k/a USAA; Steve Lee; J. Louis Blanco; Stephen Horvath; Janice Buchman; Judge Rousch, Circuit Court Judge; Keith, Circuit Court Judge; Judge Woldridge; Supreme Court of Virginia; Does 1-50; Barbara Milano Keenan; John Thomas Frey; David Schell; Marcus Williams, Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge; The Fairfax County Circuit Court; Patricia H. Harrington, Clerk of the Virginia Supreme Court; Virginia Supreme Court; Trichilo Bancroft McGavin Horvath and Judkins PC; Alan Dickey, Seminole County Circuit Court Judge; Nancy Alley, Seminole Circuit County Judge; Clayton Simmons, Seminole Circuit Court Judge; Robert Wohn, Jr., Brevard County Circuit Court Judge; James Perry, Florida Supreme Court Justice; Janice Buchman; John C. Pappas; Eric Dickey; Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP; Joann Marie Stalcup; Florida Bar; Robert Pegg, Indian River County Circuit Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-1193.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 29, 2011.
    Decided: Oct. 4, 2011.
    Vera C. Harper; David A. Harper, Appellants Pro Se.
    Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vera C. Harper and David A. Harper appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying their motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice their second amended complaint for failure to serve the defendants under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), and the district court’s subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harper v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’ n, No. 1:08-cv-00478-LO-TRJ (E.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2010; Jan. 20, 2011; Feb. 4, 2011). 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.  