Court Opinion

ID: 9902069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 21:00:35.783189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:44.372949
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1792      Doc: 14         Filed: 11/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1792

        MICHAEL A. COFIELD; KAREN A. COFIELD,

                             Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                      v.

        ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION; DAVID I. BEEM; TYRONE L. BEEM;
        DIANE BEEM; TODD BEEM; CRAIG E. BEEM; SHELLY M. STUBBLEFIELD;
        MASON COLE BEEM; KATELYN BEEM; SETH DAVID BEEM;
        CHRISTOPHER JOHN STUBBLEFIELD,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00215-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 21, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael A. Cofield; Karen A. Cofield, Appellants Pro Se. Ancil Glenn Ramey, STEPTOE
        & JOHNSON PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia; Matthew Bryan Hansberry, Bridgeport,
        West Virginia, Edmund L. Wagoner, III, HANSBERRY & WAGONER, PLLC,
        Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1792         Doc: 14        Filed: 11/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael and Karen Cofield (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s order dismissing

        as barred by the Rooker-Feldman * doctrine Plaintiffs’ civil action challenging decisions of

        the West Virgina Supreme Court of Appeals. On appeal, we confine our review to the

        issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Plaintiffs’ informal brief

        does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, they have forfeited appellate

        review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)

        (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is

        limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        judgment. Cofield v. Antero Res. Corp., No. 5:23-cv-00215-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. July

        10, 2023). 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

               *
                 District of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v.
        Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

                                                       2