Case Name: Sheena HUNT, Individually and as the Administratrix of the Estate of; Russell Aaron Hunt, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BROOKS RUN MINING COMPANY, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-29
Citations: 610 F. App'x 340
Docket Number: No. 14-2184
Parties: Sheena HUNT, Individually and as the Administratrix of the Estate of; Russell Aaron Hunt, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BROOKS RUN MINING COMPANY, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 340–341

Head Matter:
Sheena HUNT, Individually and as the Administratrix of the Estate of; Russell Aaron Hunt, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BROOKS RUN MINING COMPANY, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-2184.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2015.
Decided: July 29, 2015.
James R. Akers II, Akers Law Offices, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Gretchen M. Callas, Jackson Kelly PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sheena Hunt appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Brooks Run Mining Company in Hunt's action under W. Va.Code Ann. § 23-4-2 (LexisNe1is 2010). We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hunt v. Brooks Run Mining Co., 51 F.Supp.3d 627 (S.D.W.Va.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.
The statute recently was amended. See 2015 W. Va. Legis. Serv. 243. We applied the prior version of the statute to the facts of this case.