Case ID: f-appx_610/html/0253-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GIANT OF MARYLAND, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-1190.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 21, 2015.
    Decided: July 23, 2015.
    Dmitry Balannik, Touchstone Law Firm, LLC, Rockville, Maryland for Appellant. Marianne Hogan, Morgan, Lewis & Bocki-us LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding •precedent in this circuit.

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, 2015 WL 518573 (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.