Case Name: William Henry HARRISON; God Dyhu K. Harrison; Bigal M.A. Harrison, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Trooper J.M. WOODWARD, Virginia State Police; Sergeant Smith, Virginia State Police-Nine Mile Road Barracks; Captain Gary B. Payne, Virginia State Police; Virginia State Police; Canal Insurance Company; Bob Carlton, Agent of Canal Insurance, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-23
Citations: 538 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 13-1500
Parties: William Henry HARRISON; God Dyhu K. Harrison; Bigal M.A. Harrison, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Trooper J.M. WOODWARD, Virginia State Police; Sergeant Smith, Virginia State Police-Nine Mile Road Barracks; Captain Gary B. Payne, Virginia State Police; Virginia State Police; Canal Insurance Company; Bob Carlton, Agent of Canal Insurance, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
William Henry HARRISON; God Dyhu K. Harrison; Bigal M.A. Harrison, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Trooper J.M. WOODWARD, Virginia State Police; Sergeant Smith, Virginia State Police-Nine Mile Road Barracks; Captain Gary B. Payne, Virginia State Police; Virginia State Police; Canal Insurance Company; Bob Carlton, Agent of Canal Insurance, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-1500.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 13, 2013.
Decided: Aug. 23, 2013.
William Henry Harrison, God Dyhu K. Harrison, Bigal M.A. Harrison, Appellants Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court's orders dismissing this civil rights action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harrison v. Woodward, No. 3:13-cv-00131-HEH (E.D. Va. Mar. 5 & Apr. 9, 2013). 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.