1:13-cv-00558-GBL-JFA) JERRY A. HURST v. Guy Harbert, in his individual

FILED: June 20, 2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 13-2524
(1:13-cv-00558-GBL-JFA)
___________________
JERRY A. HURST
Plaintiff – Appellant
v.
GUY HARBERT, in his individual and official capacities;
MAXWELL WIEGARD, in his individual and official capacities;
MARTY HARBIN, in his individual and official capacities;
COLIN SHALK, in his individual and official capacities;
NICHOLAS SKILES, in his individual and official capacities;
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; DOES 1-10,
Defendants - Appellees
___________________
O R D E R
___________________
The Court amends its opinion filed June 20, 2014, as
follows:
On page 1, the panel members are corrected to remove the
name "DIAZ," and replace it with the name "SHEDD."
For the Court--By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

2
ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2524
JERRY A. HURST,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GUY HARBERT, in his individual and official capacities;
MAXWELL WIEGARD, in his individual and official capacities;
MARTY HARBIN, in his individual and official capacities;
COLIN SHALK, in his individual and official capacities;
NICHOLAS SKILES, in his individual and official capacities;
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; DOES 1-10,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00558-GBL-JFA)
Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 20, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry A. Hurst, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Jerry A. Hurst seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to the
Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725 (2012),
and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for
the reasons stated by the district court. Hurst v. Harbert, No.
1:13-cv-00558-GBL-JFA (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2013 & Nov. 22, 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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --