James Washington v. Giant of Maryland, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1190
JAMES WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GIANT OF MARYLAND, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13-
cv-02599-PWG)
Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dmitry Balannik, TOUCHSTONE LAW FIRM, LLC, Rockville, Maryland for
Appellant. Marianne Hogan, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
James Washington appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his action as barred by the applicable six-month statute of
limitations set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 160(b) (2012). On appeal,
we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s
brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating that failure to
raise claim and support argument in opening brief “triggers
abandonment of that claim on appeal”).
Because Washington’s brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition of his federal claims, he has
forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. As to
Washington’s argument for the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (2012), we reject this argument
for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Giant
of Md., LLC, No. 8-13-cv-02599-PWG (D. Md. Feb. 6, 2015).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

-- 2 of 2 --