Jerry A. HURST, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 08-2223.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2009. Decided: April 29, 2009.
325 Fed. Appx. 250
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.*
Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry A. Hurst appeals from the district court’s orders: (1) denying relief on his claims of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on his claims of breach of contract; and (3) denying his motions for reconsideration of those orders. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Hurst’s motion for transcripts at government expense and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hurst v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 7:05-cv-00776-gec, 2007 WL 951692 (W.D.Va. filed Mar. 23, 2007 entered March 26, 2007); 2007 WL 2257633 (Aug. 6, 2007); 2008 WL 4394759 (Sept. 26, 2008); denied 2008 WL 4974786 (Nov. 21, 2008; entered Nov. 25, 2008). However, because the district court addressed the claims on the merits, we modify the district court’s September 26, 2008 order to reflect that the dismissal is with prejudice.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Zeenia S. SATTI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Bank of America Corporation, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-2271.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2009. Decided: April 29, 2009.
325 Fed. Appx. 251
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.*
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zeenia Satti appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Satti v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 1:08-cv-01008-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Oct. 7, 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.