Jarmuth v. Culpepper

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1465
RONALD E. JARMUTH; ANGELA J. JARMUTH,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-81-IMK)
Submitted: October 3, 2005 Decided: November 4, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
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, 569 S.E.2d 99, 105 n.5 (W. Va. 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
- 3 -