#### Mary J. SWEETING, individually and as administrator of the estate of Glenn J. Sweeting, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Larisse Coward, individually and on behalf of K.C., a minor (DOB 2000); Nicole Jennings, individually and on behalf of G.S., a minor (DOB 2000); Tabatha Lester, individually and on behalf of K.L., a minor (DOB 1997); Angela Winston, individually and on behalf of K.W., a minor (DOB 1998); Maxine Timberlake, individually and on behalf of S.S., a minor (DOB 1990), Plaintiffs, v. Robert COOK, Special Agent, Richmond FBI, individually and in his official capacity; Gary F. Jennings, Special Agent, Richmond FBI, individually and in his official capacity; United States of America; Mark Sykes, Squad 3 Supervisor, Richmond FBI, individually and in his official capacity; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Chesterfield County Police Department; William Gormley, Medical Examiner’s Office, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe, FBI Agents, individually and in their official capacities; Jane Doe, FBI Agents, individually and in their official capacities; Donald W. Thompson, Jr., Special Agent in Charge, Richmond FBI, individually and in his official capacity; John Doe, individually and in their official capacities; Jane Doe, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants.

No. 07-1465.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2007.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2007.

*547Mary J. Sweeting, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert P. McIntosh, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Steven Latham Micas, County Attorney, David Wayne Robinson, County Attorney’s Office, Chesterfield, Virginia; Howard Martin Casway, Assistant Attorney General, David Edward Johnson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mary J. Sweeting appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.**Sweeting v. Cook,*No. 3:06-cv-00332-JRS (E.D. Va. Mar. 14 *&*22, 2007). 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.*

*

 We are precluded from reviewing claims or arguments not presented before us for review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Thus, to the extent Sweeting may have had a potentially viable claim not presented to this court, review of such a claim is deemed waived. *Id.*To the extent Sweeting seeks to raise issues for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider such claims. *See Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Sweeting's claim regarding the Appellees’ alleged failure to notify her of her son’s death is without merit for the same reasons relied upon by the district court in dismissing the rest of Sweeting’s complaint.