Case Name: Bonnie Suzanne MARTIN; Sandra Yingling; Ashley Barber; Duane David Martin; David Duane Martin, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of Debranne Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED FARM FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-04
Citations: 611 F. App'x 145
Docket Number: No. 14-2403
Parties: Bonnie Suzanne MARTIN; Sandra Yingling; Ashley Barber; Duane David Martin; David Duane Martin, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of Debranne Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED FARM FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 611
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
Bonnie Suzanne MARTIN; Sandra Yingling; Ashley Barber; Duane David Martin; David Duane Martin, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of Debranne Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED FARM FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-2403.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2015.
Decided: Aug. 4, 2015.
Andrew D. Levy, Joseph B. Espo, Matthias L. Niska, Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Margaret Fonshell Ward, Ward & Herzog LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bonnie Suzanne Martin, Sandra Yin-gling, Ashley Barber, Duane David Martin, and David Duane Martin appeal the magistrate judge's order granting summary judgment to United Farm Family Insurance Co. in this diversity action arising out of a dispute over coverage under an insurance policy. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Martin v. United Farm Family Ins. Co., No. 1:14-cv-01578 (D.Md. Nov. 24, 2014). 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.