Michael Cofield v. Antero Resources Corporation, No. 23-1792 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1792 MICHAEL A. COFIELD; KAREN A. COFIELD, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ANTERO RESOURCES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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
