Filed: Dec. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1524 THERESA M. CHITTUM; KENNETH E. CHITTUM, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and CHIMART INCORPORATED, d/b/a Five Star Food Mart, Plaintiff, versus STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-896-1) Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1524 THERESA M. CHITTUM; KENNETH E. CHITTUM, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and CHIMART INCORPORATED, d/b/a Five Star Food Mart, Plaintiff, versus STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-896-1) Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, a..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1524 THERESA M. CHITTUM; KENNETH E. CHITTUM, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and CHIMART INCORPORATED, d/b/a Five Star Food Mart, Plaintiff, versus STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-896-1) Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. McGinnis E. Hatfield, Jr., Bluefield, West Virginia, for Appellants. David K. Schwirian, PAULEY, CURRY, STURGEON & VANDERFORD, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Theresa M. Chittum and Kenneth E. Chittum appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant and dismissing their civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Chittum v. State Auto Ins. Cos., No. CA-04-896-1 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 20, 2005). 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 - 3 -