
    Juan R. CERVANTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Juan R. Cervantes, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-1263, No. 16-1324
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 29, 2016
    Decided: December 6, 2016
    J. David Stradley, White & Stradley, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina; Brian M. Ricci, RICCI Law Firm, PA, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant/Cross-Ap-pellee. Jessica C. Tyndall, McAngus, Gou-delock & Courie, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Juan R. Cervantes appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company (“Bridgefield”) cross-appeals from the district court’s orders denying Bridge-field’s motions to stay discovery and for a protective order, and granting, in part, Cervantes’ motions to compel and for sanctions. With respect to Cervantes’ appeal, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We agree with the district court that “persuasive data” does not exist convincing us that the North Carolina Supreme Court would disagree with the decisions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals relied on by the district court. See Assicurazioni Gen-erali, S.p-A. v. Neil, 160 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Cervantes’ complaint substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Cervantes v. Bridgefield Cas. Ins. Co., No. 1:15-cv-00081-JLW, 2016 WL 592799 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 2016). Because we • affirm the district court’s dismissal of Cervantes’ complaint, we dismiss Bridgefield’s cross-appeal as moot. 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.

AFFIRMED  