Case ID: f-appx_148/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ronald E. JARMUTH; Angela J. Jarmuth, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James J. CULPEPPER, Individually and in his Capacity as Family Law Master and Judge for the Family Law Court of Manongalia, West Virginia; Brian Krolczyk, Individually and in his Capacity as Acting Director of Clinical Services for Valley Community Mental Health; Valley Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center, Incorporated, d/b/a Valley Health Care System; Elliott Maynard, In his Capacity as Chief Judge of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-1465.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 3, 2005.
    Decided: Nov. 4, 2005.
    Ronald E. Jarmuth, Angela J. Jarmuth, Appellants Pro Se. Stephanie Ann Jones, Jeffery Dale Taylor, Rose Padden & Petty, L.C., Fairmont, West Virginia; Vanessa Lynn Goddard, Steptoe & Johnson, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Jacquelyn J. Core, Steptoe & Johnson, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Ronald E. Jarmuth and Angela J. Jarmuth appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their civil rights claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jarmuth v. Culpepper, No. CA-04-81-IMK (N.D.W.Va. Mar. 31, 2005). We deny the Jarmuths’ motion opposing the appearance of Appellees’ counsel as the Jarmuths failed to establish that West Virginia requires the West Virginia Attorney General to represent judicial officers. See State ex rel. McGraw v. Burton, 212 W.Va. 23, 569 S.E.2d 99, 105 n. 5 (2002) (stating that its holding that state officials should be represented by the Attorney General only applied to executive branch officials and not legislative or judicial officials). We also deny the Jarmuths’ motion to strike the Appellees’ response brief. 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