
    UNDER SEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNDER SEAL, Individually; Under Seal, Individually; Under Seal, Trooper, Individually and in his official capacity, West Virginia State Police; Under Seal, Individually and in his official capacity, Prosecuting Attorney, Kanawha County Magistrate Court; Under Seal, Attorney, Individually; Under Seal, Individually and in her official capacity Guardian Ad Litem, Employed by the State of West Virginia; Under Seal, Individually and in her official capacity, Caseworker, Child Protective Services, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services; Under Seal, Individually and in her official capacity, Caseworker, Child Protective Services, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services; Under Seal, in his official capacity, Attorney, West Virginia Child Support Enforcement Division, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-2478.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 27, 2005.
    Decided: May 24, 2005.
    Under Seal, for Appellant.
    George B. Vieweg, III, Bayliss & Phelan, Charleston, West Virginia; Gary Edward Pullin, Wendy Elizabeth Greve, Johnnie Edward Brown, Pullin, Fowler & Flanagan, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; William P. Jones, Office of the Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia; Keith C. Gamble, Pullin, Fowler & Flanagan, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Stephen R. Crislip, Jill M. Obenchain, Jackson Kelly, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Gerard Ray Stowers, John Mark Adkins, Bowles, Rice, McDavid, Graff & Love, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia; Constance H. Weber, Kay, Casto & Chaney, Charleston, West Virginia; Jeanine M. Anderson, Mark T. Barnes, Lara Spencer Smith, Brownstein, Hyatt & Farber, Denver, Colorado, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on a complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, No. CA-04-230 (S.D.W.Va. Oct. 14, 2004). 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  