Case Name: Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-29
Citations: 324 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 08-2223
Parties: Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-2223.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2009.
Decided: April 29, 2009.
Jerry A. Hurst, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell Huddleston Wiegard, Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2006).

Opinion:
Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry A. Hurst appeals from the district court's orders: (1) denying relief on his claims of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on his claims of breach of contract; and (3) denying his motions for reconsideration of those orders. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Hurst's motion for transcripts at government expense and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hurst v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 7:05-cv-00776-gec, 2007 WL 951692 (W.D.Va. filed Mar. 23, 2007 entered March 26, 2007); 2007 WL 2257633 (Aug. 6, 2007); 2008 WL 4394759 (Sept. 26, 2008); denied 2008 WL 4974786 (Nov. 21, 2008; entered Nov. 25, 2008). However, because the district court addressed the claims on the merits, we modify the district court's September 26, 2008 order to reflect that the dismissal is with prejudice. 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 AS MODIFIED.