
    Wilma Lee RANKIN, Individually and in her capacity as Guardian, Parent and next friend of and for B.L.R., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, and B.L.R., a minor; Paul James Rankin, Sr., Individually, Plaintiffs, v. BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Berkeley County, West Virginia; Ronald Jones, Individually and in his capacity as Sheriff of Berkeley County, West Virginia; K.C. Bohrer, Individually and in his capacity as a Supervisor and Deputy for the Berkeley County Sheriffs Department; Mark Spessert; Daniel L. Steerman, Individually and in their capacities as Deputies for the Berkeley County Sheriffs Department, Defendants-Appellees, and Berkeley County Commission; Berkeley County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office; Pamela Games-Neely, Individually and in her capacity as the agent for the Berkeley County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Defendants.
    No. 06-1244.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 12, 2007.
    Decided: Oct. 3, 2007.
    Laura V. Faireloth, Law Offices of Laura Faircloth & Associates, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lucien G. Lewin, Bridget M. Cohee, Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Michael D. Lorensen, Bowles, Rice, McDavid, Graff & Love, LLP, Mar-tinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Wilma Rankin, individually and in her capacity as Guardian of B.L.R., a minor, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Rankin v. Berkeley County Sheriffs Dep’t, No. 3:02-cv-00010-WCB (N.D. W. Va. filed Jan. 12, 2006 & entered Jan. 13, 2006; Jan. 19 & Feb. 10, 2006). In addition, we decline to consider claims brought for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). 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.  