The 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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
3