
    Samuel J. SWIGER; Brenda Frazier Swiger, individually and as next friends of Joseph Shawn Swiger, an infant, and all individually as representatives of a class of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. UNITED VALLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation doing business in West Virginia; UGI Corporation, a foreign corporation doing business in West Virginia; Lon R. Greenberg; Eugene Van Bissell; Crawford & Company, a/k/a Crawford & Company Insurance Adjusters, Incorporated, a corporation doing business in West Virginia; Mark P. Griffith, Individually; Daniel W. Hoover, Individually, Defendants—Appellees, and R. Paul Grady; Energy Insurance Mutual, Ltd; Ace Group of Companies; Ace Insurance Company; Ace USA; Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services, Ltd; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Incorporated; Starr Express Liability Insurance Company, Ltd; American International Group, Incorporated, Defendants.
    
      No. 05-2017.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 31, 2006.
    Decided July 11, 2006.
    David J. Romano, James R. Fox, Romano Law Office, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellants. Jay N. Varón, Melinda F. Levitt, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Washington, D.C.; James A. Varner, Sr., Debra Tedeschi Herron, Tiffany R. Durst, Mcneer, Highland, McMunn and Varner, L.C., Clarksburg, West Virginia; Richard J. Bolen, Melissa Dodd Veltri, Erin E. Rich, Huddleston & Bolen LLP, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Samuel J. Swiger and Brenda Frazier Swiger appeal the district court’s order denying their request for attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Swiger v. United Valley Ins. Co., No. CA-05-52-1-IMK (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 8, 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  