Cecile M. LESCS; Richard A. Last, Deceased, by Cecile M. Lescs next of kin and power of attorney; Estate of Richard A. Last, by Cecile N. Lescs, Executrix, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARTINSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT; Wayne Cleveland; Theodore Anderson; George Swartwood; Glenn Macher; City of Martinsburg, Incorporated; Mark S. Baldwin; George Karos; Max Parkinson; United States Postal Service; William Wilmoth; James Wright; Janet Reno; United States Department of Justice; John Moran; Raymond West; Louis Freeh; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Wells Morrison; Veterans Administration; George Moore, Director; Richard Pell; William J. Henderson, a/k/a the Postmaster General of the United States, Postmaster General; Jane Doe 1-17; Ricky Swartwood, Lieutenant; John O'Neill; Dale Watson; Bob Blitzer; William J. Clinton; John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General; MarionBowman; John O'Brien; Sandy Berger; Director of West Virginia Bureau of Criminal Identification; West Virginia State Police; Tina Ferguson; George Ferguson; Thomas Doman, Jr.; Michael Doman; Harry Householder; Marie Householder; Shawna Dillon; Allen Dillon; Pat Keller; Bobby Keller; Joseph Snell, Jr.; John Doe, 1-30; Officer Sheetz; Officer Ellis; Officer Ruppenthal; J. Oakley Siebert, Director of Berkeley County Senior Center; Berkeley County Senior Center; Berkeley County Administration; Robert S. Mueller, III; VA Medical Center Martinsburg, West Virginia; Dunn; West Virginia Police Department, Defendants-Appellees, 119 F. App'x 505

PER CURIAM: Cecile M. Lescs appeals the district court’s orders granting the motion to dismiss her civil action, denying her motion for

summary judgment, and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Lescs v. Martinsburg Police Dep’t, No. CA-03-7-3 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 26, 2004 & June 25, 2004). 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 note that while the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for failure to effect proper service of process, see Fed.

R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5), and that "a failure to obtain proper service on the defendant deprives the court of personal jurisdiction over the defendant,” Koehler v. Dodwell, 152 F.3d 304, 306 (4th Cir.1998), insufficient service would not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Mississippi Publ’g Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 445, 66 S.Ct. 242, 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946).