William Coonts v. Randolph County Commission

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00021-JPB-MJA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999976870]. Mailed to: W Coonts. [16-1537]

Appeal: 16-1537

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

November 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 16-1537

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1537

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William
granting
action.

Wayne

the

Coonts

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

Defendants’

motions

to

dismiss

Coonts’

civil

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).
court’s judgment.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Accordingly, we affirm the district

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3