Ronald E. Jarmuth and Angela J. Jarmuth appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their civil rights claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jarmuth v. Culpepper, No. CA-04-81-IMK (N.D.W.Va. Mar. 31, 2005). We deny the *189 Jarmuths’ motion opposing the appearance of Appellees’ counsel as the Jarmuths failed to establish that West Virginia requires the West Virginia Attorney General to represent judicial officers. See State ex rel. McGraw v. Burton, 212 W.Va. 23, 569 S.E.2d 99, 105 n. 5 (2002) (stating that its holding that state officials should be represented by the Attorney General only applied to executive branch officials and not legislative or judicial officials). We also deny the Jarmuths’ motion to strike the Appellees’ response 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