# Kelly v. West Virginia Board of Law Examiners

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 18, 2011 · 418 F. App'x 203

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8438332

## Case

- **Full name:** Shannon KELLY 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
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 18, 2011
- **Citations:** 418 F. App'x 203
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Hamilton, Shedd, Wilkinson
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8438332

## Opinion text

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8438332. Public record. Not legal advice.