Case Name: Wendell FREEMAN; David Jathniel Freeman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RICHLAND COUNTY PROBATE COURT; Amy McCulloch, Probate Judge; Jacqueline D. Belton, Associate Probate Judge; State of South Carolina; Mark Sanford, Governor; Teresa Lee Clement, Guardian Ad Litem, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-28
Citations: 211 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 06-1449
Parties: Wendell FREEMAN; David Jathniel Freeman, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. RICHLAND COUNTY PROBATE COURT; Amy McCulloch, Probate Judge; Jacqueline D. Belton, Associate Probate Judge; State of South Carolina; Mark Sanford, Governor; Teresa Lee Clement, Guardian Ad Litem, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 211
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Wendell FREEMAN; David Jathniel Freeman, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. RICHLAND COUNTY PROBATE COURT; Amy McCulloch, Probate Judge; Jacqueline D. Belton, Associate Probate Judge; State of South Carolina; Mark Sanford, Governor; Teresa Lee Clement, Guardian Ad Litem, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-1449.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 21, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 28, 2006.
Wendell Freeman, David Jathniel Freeman, Appellants Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wendell and David Jathniel Freeman appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Freeman v. Richland County Probate Court, No. 3:06-cv-00010-MBS (D.S.C. Apr. 6, 2006). 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.