Case Name: Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Guy HARBERT, in their individual and official capacities; Maxwell Wiegard, in their individual and official capacities; Marty Harbin, in their individual and official capacities; Colin Shalk, in their individual and official capacities; Nicholas Skiles, in their 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: 2016-08-22
Citations: 668 F. App'x 39
Docket Number: No. 16-1242
Parties: Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Guy HARBERT, in their individual and official capacities; Maxwell Wiegard, in their individual and official capacities; Marty Harbin, in their individual and official capacities; Colin Shalk, in their individual and official capacities; Nicholas Skiles, in their individual and official capacities; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; DOES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 39–39

Head Matter:
Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Guy HARBERT, in their individual and official capacities; Maxwell Wiegard, in their individual and official capacities; Marty Harbin, in their individual and official capacities; Colin Shalk, in their individual and official capacities; Nicholas Skiles, in their individual and official capacities; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; DOES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-1242
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 18, 2016
Decided: August 22, 2016
Jerry A. Hurst, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry A. Hurst appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint in which he sought to raise claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2722, 2724 (2012), and various state laws. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hurst v. Harbert, No. 5:15-cv-00033-GEC (W.D. Va. filed Feb. 12, 2016; entered Feb. 16, 2016). 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.
AFFIRMED