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: 2016-01-19
Citations: 630 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 15-2000
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-Ap-pellees.
Judges: Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 630
Pages: 209–210

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-Ap-pellees.
No. 15-2000.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.
Decided: Jan. 19, 2016.
Jerry A. Hurst, Appellant Pro Se.
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry A. Hurst seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his complaint in which he sought to raise claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012), the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2722, 2724 (2012), and various state laws, and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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, 2015 WL 3505557 (W.D.Va. June 3, 2015 & Aug. 3, 2015). 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.