Case Name: Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; Marty A. Harbin, in his individual and representative capacity; David L. Jones, in his individual and representative capacity; Marshall Major, in his individual and representative capacity; John D. McGavin, in his individual and representative capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-29
Citations: 324 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 08-2372
Parties: Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; Marty A. Harbin, in his individual and representative capacity; David L. Jones, in his individual and representative capacity; Marshall Major, in his individual and representative capacity; John D. McGavin, in his individual and representative capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 261–261

Head Matter:
Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; Marty A. Harbin, in his individual and representative capacity; David L. Jones, in his individual and representative capacity; Marshall Major, in his individual and representative capacity; John D. McGavin, in his individual and representative capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-2372.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2009.
Decided: April 29, 2009.
Jerry A. Hurst, Appellant Pro Se.
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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order dismissing his complaint against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and its agents as barred by res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hurst v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 1:08-cv02907-WMN (D. Md. Nov 19, 2008). 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.