UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1912 LOUISE REDDITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JERRY KILGORE, State of Virginia Attorney General; JOHN CLARK BODDIE, Fulton County Major; BILL EDWARDS, South Fulton County Commissioner; PAUL L. HOWARD, Fulton County District Attorney, FAIRFAX COUNTY, Fairfax County General District Court; FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE; VERNON L. THOMPSON, Fairfax County Sheriff; MARK S. LORIA, Esquire; FAIRFAX COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT; HONORABLE GALLUHUE; HONORABLE CASSIDY; DWIGHT JONES, Fairfax County Public Defender; LEON PONCE; OFFICER PERL, Fairfax County Police Officer; OFFICER HERBERT, Fairfax County Police Officer; DENNIS FITZPATRICK, Commonwealth Prosecutor; KIMBERLY PACE, Commonwealth Prosecutor; HONORABLE KLEIN, Fairfax County Circuit Court; HERBERT HAWKINS, Fairfax County Deputy Sheriff; FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN T. FREY, Fairfax County Clerk, MICHAEL MCWEENY, Honorable, Fairfax County Circuit Court; STAN BARRY, Fairfax County Sheriff; MAJOR BOYD WHITLEY, Fairfax County Sheriff; SHERIFF STOVASH, Fairfax County; HONORABLE DAVIS, Fairfax County General District, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-800-1-JCC) Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 28, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louise Redditt, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Louise Redditt appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Redditt v. Commonwealth of VA, No. CA-05-800- 1-JCC (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2005). We also deny Redditt’s motion for default judgment. 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 -