Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Jerry Hurst v. Guy Harbert, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders denying Jerry Hurst's complaint and motion for reconsideration. Hurst sought to raise claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, and state laws against various individuals and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Jerry Hurst v. Guy Harbert, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders denying Jerry Hurst's complaint and motion for reconsideration. Hurst sought to raise claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, and state laws against various individuals and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-01-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-2000

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders denying Jerry Hurst's complaint and motion for reconsideration. Hurst sought to raise claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, and state laws against various individuals and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    16 views2 pages

    Jerry Hurst v. Guy Harbert, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders denying Jerry Hurst's complaint and motion for reconsideration. Hurst sought to raise claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, and state laws against various individuals and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-2000

    JERRY A. HURST,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    GUY HARBERT, in their individual and official capacities;
    MAXWELL WIEGARD, in their individual and official capacities;
    MARTY HARBIN, in their individual and official capacities;
    COLIN SHALK, in their individual and official capacities;
    NICHOLAS SKILES, in their individual and official capacities;
    STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; DOES 1-10,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
    Glen E. Conrad, Chief
    District Judge. (5:15-cv-00033-GEC)

    Submitted:

    January 14, 2016

    Decided:

    January 19, 2016

    Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jerry A. Hurst, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jerry A. Hurst seeks to appeal the district courts orders
    denying relief on his complaint in which he sought to raise claims
    under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012), the Drivers Privacy Protection
    Act, 28 U.S.C. 2722, 2724 (2012), and various state laws, and
    denying his motion for reconsideration.
    record and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the

    Accordingly, we affirm for

    the reasons stated by the district court.

    Hurst v. Harbert, No.

    5:15-cv-00033-GEC (W.D. Va. June 3, 2015 & Aug. 3, 2015).

    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

    You might also like