Michael A. Cofield; Karen A. Cofield v. Antero Resources Corporation

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --