
    Robert B. HOLT, individually; Doris Holt, Estate of Doris Holt by and through Robert B. Holt, sole beneficiary, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Susan STROMAN; Princess Hodges; Susan Tillman; Kathy Beers; Jennifer Brewton; UniHealth Post Acute Care of Columbia; Latoya Buggs-Williams; Sgt. Darin L. Dougherty; Sgt. George A. Drafts; Columbia Police Department; Andre Bauer; Ken Ard; Beth Schuler; Crystal Pavlick; Palmetto Health; Palmetto Senior Care; UHS-Pruitt Corporation; Lt. Col. Carl Burke; Brenda Hodges; Pamela Danzler; UniHealth Orangeburg SC; April Merill; Jayson Bring, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina, The state of; South Carolina Department of Social Services; Brenda Hughes, individually and in her official capacity as Administrator with UniHealth; SC Office On Aging, the; Certain Unknown John Does, in their individual and official capacities; South Carolina Ombudsman’s office, Defendants.
    No. 15-1377.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 18, 2016.
    Decided: May 17, 2016.
    Michael G. Sribnick, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants. Andrew F. Lin-demann, Davidson & Lindemann, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Eugene H. Matthews, C. Cliff Rollins, Richardson Plowden & Robinson, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; James E. Parham, Jr., James E. Parham, Jr., P.A., Irmo, South Carolina; J. Edward Bradley, John C. Bradley, Jr., Moore Taylor Law Firm, P.A., W. Columbia, South Carolina; Tyler L. Arnold, W. Jerad Rissler, Arnall Golden Gregory, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Jeanne J. Lisowski, Office of the City Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellees.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert B. Holt appeals the district court’s order dismissing the first amended complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Holt v. Stroman, No. 3:12-cv-03539-JMC, 2015 WL 1061990 (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  