Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hurst v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, 08-2372 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-2372 Visitors: 39
Filed: Apr. 29, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2372 JERRY A. HURST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY;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. Appeal from the United States District Court for the D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2372 JERRY A. HURST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY;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. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-02907-WMN) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. * Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry A. Hurst, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. * The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2006). 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-cv- 02907-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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer