Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01537/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01537-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1537

WILLIAM WAYNE COONTS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RANDOLPH COUNTY COMMISSION; RANDLOPH COUNTY PROSECUTORS’

OFFICE; PHILLIP ISNER; PHILIP RIGGLEMAN, In His Individual 

Capacity; THERESA COGAR, In Her Individual Capacity; RICHARD 

WALLACE SHRYOCK, JR., In His Individual Capacity,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

RANDOLPH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN RESOURCES,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

District Judge. (2:15-cv-00021-JPB-MJA)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-1537 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

William Wayne Coonts, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clee Chenoweth, 

Peter G. Zurbuch, BUSCH, ZURBUCH & THOMPSON, PLLC, Elkins, West 

Virginia; David K. Hendrickson, HENDRICKSON & LONG, PLLC, 

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1537 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

William Wayne Coonts appeals the district court’s order 

granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss Coonts’ civil 

action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised 

in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because 

Coonts’ informal brief does not challenge the district court’s 

dispositive analysis, Coonts has waived appellate review of the 

court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 

430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. 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

Appeal: 16-1537 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3