Opinion
23-1792
11-21-2023
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.
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UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 16, 2023
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)
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.
Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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).