
    Louise REDDITT; Dominique Hollis, Louise Redditt, legal guardian; Deneisha Hollis, Louise Redditt, legal guardian, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; Magistrate Beheler, Fairfax County Chief; Magistrate Bruggerman, Fairfax County; Fairfax County, Virginia; Fairfax County Police Department; Michael Mcdaniel, Fairfax County Detective; D.M. Hubbard, Fairfax County Deputy Sheriff; Darconte, Fairfax County Police MPO; R.K. Bistline, Fairfax County Police Officer; Linda Peterson; West Falls Station Apartments; Judge Galluhue, Honorable; Pat Bennick, Ms.; Jane Ouelette, Ms.; Stephanie Wilson, Ms.; Juanita Harris, Ms.; Norma Suarez; Evelyn Miller, Ms.; Gates, Hudson & Associates, Inc.; Fairfax County Sheriffs Office; Absolon, Fairfax County Lieutenant; Patricia Wade, Ms.; J. Thomas Manger, Colonel, Chief of Police; David Bobzien, Fairfax County Attorney; Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Social Services; Meldon S. Hollis, Jr.; Sharon Fox, Assistant Manager West Falls Station Apartments; Erin Helzer; Jan Fairbane; Fairfax County Board of Education; Alison Van Iddekinge; Janna Ellen, Department of Family Services; Denise Studeny, Ms.; Mario Bezzini, Esquire; Kamonya Omatete, Department of Family Services; Stephanie Scott, Esquire; Deckelbaum Ogens & Raferty, Chartered Attorneys at Law; Uhaul; Fairfax County Public Defender; Facet; Thacker, Honorable Judge; Clerk of Circuit Court; Robert Horan, Jr., Commonwealth Prosecutor Attorney; Richard Porter, Magistrate; Public Storage Pickup and Delivery; for Children’s Sake; James Wilcox, Jr., Assistant County Attorney; S.D. Desonia, Officer; A-Z Pawn, Inc.; the Commons of Mclean; Kate Greely, Clerk, Fairfax County Government Center, Defendants—Appellees, and Fairfax County Public Schools; Fairfax County Department of Human Services, Defendants, v. Metro Properties Management, Incorporated, Movant—Appellee.
    No. 03-1440.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2003.
    Decided Nov. 12, 2003.
    Louise Redditt, Dominique Hollis, Deneisha Hollis, pro se.
    Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; James Edward Wilcox, Jr., Fairfax, Virginia; Alexander Francuzenko, O’Connell, O’Connell & Sarsfield, Rockville, Maryland; Sanford Alex Friedman, Law Offices of Sanford Friedman, L.L.C., Washington, D.C.; Paul Desmond Flynn, Hunton & Williams, McLean, Virginia; Christopher Paul Spera, Deckelbaum, Ogens, & Raftery, Chartered, Bethesda, Maryland; Thomas Michael Hogan, Hogan & Heald, Alexandria, Virginia; Stephen S. Brown, Lipshultz & Hone, Chartered, Silver Spring, Maryland; Paul Herbert Harrington, Jr., Fairfax, Virginia; Wendy Alyn Alexander, Walsh, Colucei, Stackhouse, Emrich & Lubeley, P.C., Manassas, Virginia; Roya Palmer Ewing, Law Office of Roya Palmer Ewing, Richmond, Virginia; John David McGavin, Triehilo, Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, Fairfax, Virginia; F. Andrew Carroll, III, Land, Clark, Carroll, Mendelson & Blair, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Louise Redditt, on behalf of herself and her two minor daughters, appeals the district court’s orders denying her motion to amend her third amended complaint and granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment on her complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Redditt also appeals several other nondispositive orders of the district court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Redditt v. Fairfax County Pub. Sch., No. CA-02-1275-A (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 4, 2003 & entered Mar. 5, 2003; filed Apr. 9, 2003 & entered Apr. 10, 2003; filed Apr. 16, 2003 & entered Apr. 17, 2003; filed Apr. 23, 2003 & entered Apr. 24, 2003; May 1, 2003). We deny Redditt’s motions for preparation of transcripts at government expense, for documentation, for videotaping, for discussion of settlement and for a change of venue. 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  