UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1244

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,

versus

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 Sheriff's Department; MARK SPESSERT; DANIEL L. STEERMAN, Individually and in their capacities as Deputies for the Berkeley County Sheriff’s 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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (3:02-cv-00010-WCB)

Submitted: September 12, 2007 Decided: October 3, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Laura V. Faircloth, 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, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 - 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

(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

Sheriff’s 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,

(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

- 3 -