Kelly v. West Virginia Board of Law Examiners

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 18, 2011
• Docket: 10-1554
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1554

SHANNON KELLY,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, a West Virginia state agency; LAWRENCE M. SHULTZ, in his official capacity as President of the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners; ANCIL G. RAMEY, in his official capacity as Vice-President of the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners; SUE ANN HOWARD, in her official capacity as a member of the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners; WARD D. STONE, JR., in his official capacity as a member of the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners; BRADLEY J. PYLES, in his official capacity as a member of the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners; SARAH N. HALL, in her official capacity as a member of the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners; JOHN F. CYRUS, in his official capacity as a member of the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00933-DAF)

Submitted: February 11, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shannon Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Hedges, Stephanie Shepherd, BYRNE, HEDGES & LYONS, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Shannon Kelly appeals the district court’s order

entering judgment in favor of the Respondents in his complaint

alleging Americans with Disabilities Act, due process, and equal

protection violations. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Kelly v. West Virginia Bd. of Law

Exam’rs., No. 2:08-cv-00933-DAF (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 31 & Apr. 16,

2010). We deny the Appellees’ motion to strike the Appellant’s

informal reply 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