WILMA LEE RANKIN, Individually v. Faircloth, LAW OFFICES OF LAURA FAIRCLOTH & ASSOCIATES, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for

UNPUBLISHED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,

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 3 --

- 3 -
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
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, 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

-- 3 of 3 --