Case Name: Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Guy HARBERT, in his individual and official capacities; Maxwell Wiegard, in his individual and official capacities; Marty Harbin, in his individual and official capacities; Colin Shalk, in his individual and official capacities; Nicholas Skiles, in his individual and official capacities; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; Does 1-10, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-20
Citations: 577 F. App'x 145
Docket Number: No. 13-2524; No. 1:13-cv-00558-GBL-JFA
Parties: Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Guy HARBERT, in his individual and official capacities; Maxwell Wiegard, in his individual and official capacities; Marty Harbin, in his individual and official capacities; Colin Shalk, in his individual and official capacities; Nicholas Skiles, in his individual and official capacities; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; Does 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 577
Pages: 145–145

Head Matter:
Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Guy HARBERT, in his individual and official capacities; Maxwell Wiegard, in his individual and official capacities; Marty Harbin, in his individual and official capacities; Colin Shalk, in his individual and official capacities; Nicholas Skiles, in his individual and official capacities; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; Does 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-2524.
No. 1:13-cv-00558-GBL-JFA.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 30, 2014.
Decided: June 20, 2014.
Jerry A. Hurst, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
ORDER
ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
Jerry A. Hurst seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721-2725 (2012), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Hurst v. Harbert, No. 1:13-cv-00558-GBL-JFA (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2013 & Nov. 22, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.