Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01190/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01190-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1190 Doc: 29 Filed: 07/23/2015 Pg: 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

Appeal: 15-1190 Doc: 29 Filed: 07/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 2