UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1069

RICHARD STOGSDILL; NANCY STOGSDILL, Parent of Richard Stogsdill, on 

behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

ROBERT LEVIN; MARY SELF, Parent of Robert Levin, on behalf of themselves 

and other similarly situated persons,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS; CYNTHIA MANN; JOHN DOES 1-20; CMS; 

ANTHONY KECK,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:12−cv−00007−JFA) 

Submitted: February 22, 2023 Decided: June 6, 2023

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069 Doc: 70 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 1 of 6
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Patricia Logan Harrison, Cleveland, South Carolina, for Appellants. Damon C. 

Wlodarczyk, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069 Doc: 70 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 2 of 6
3

PER CURIAM:

In 2012, Richard Stogsdill, Robert Levin and their parent caregivers sued the South 

Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and related individual defendants 

(collectively, the “SCDHHS”) in the District of South Carolina seeking declaratory and 

injunctive relief. On multiple grounds, they challenged South Carolina’s Medicaid waiver 

program, established under 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c), which provides home and communitybased services to certain individuals with severe disabilities and allows individuals to avoid 

institutionalization. Stogsdill and Levin, two severely disabled individuals, receive such 

medical equipment and services. Following a bench trial and extensive motions practice, 

the district court entered judgment granting the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief as 

to a determination about the provision of a single piece of medical equipment, a water 

walker, and denied all other requested relief. Stogsdill, Levin and their parent caregivers

appealed. Considering the entire record and applicable law, we affirm.

In 2010, the SCDHHS implemented amendments to the waiver program that capped 

certain community-based services and eliminated others. As a result, Stogsdill and Levin 

experienced a reduction in the services they received. Stogsdill moved for the 

reconsideration of the reduction of services provided to him and, after the denial of that 

motion, appealed administratively and to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. Levin did 

not request such reconsideration. 

Stogsdill, Levin and their parent caregivers also brought this action in federal court

with a lengthy list of claims against the SCDHHS for alleged violations of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069 Doc: 70 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 3 of 6
4

the Medicaid Act, the Administrative and Procedures Act of the State of South Carolina 

and the Supremacy and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. In the 

following years, the parties have engaged in significant motions practice and the district 

court has conducted several bench trials. The court issued multiple orders that have 

narrowed the issues, claims, and parties in the case. And we have considered two prior 

appeals of the district court’s decisions.

The last time the case was before us, in March 2019, we affirmed the careful and 

thoughtful judgments of the district court in nearly all respects but remanded Stogsdill’s 

claims against the state defendants which the district court declined to consider based on 

abstention principles in light of parallel proceedings taking place in state court. Stogsdill v. 

Azar, 765 F. App’x 873, 877 (4th Cir. 2019).

After we remanded on that limited issue, the district court considered the remaining 

claims. It dismissed most of those claims based on a combination of preclusion, the

outcome of state court litigation and a consent order. But as to the remaining claims, it 

conducted another bench trial. Following the trial, the district court denied all requested 

relief except for Stogsdill’s request for declaratory relief as to the reasonable promptness 

provision of the Medicaid Act set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(8) with respect to 

Stogsdill’s specific request for a water walker, which it granted. 

The district court also determined that the SCDHHS provided notice and an 

opportunity for a fair hearing with respect to the requested medical equipment in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3) and the regulations. In sum, other than as to the

provision of the water walker, the district court concluded that Stogsdill, Levin and their 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069 Doc: 70 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 4 of 6
5

parent caregivers failed to carry their burden of proof showing entitlement to any relief as 

to any remaining claims. The district court also denied their motion to alter or amend the 

judgment. Stogsdill, Levin and their parent caregivers appealed that order as well as any 

other appealable orders below. JA8559; JA8570.

On appeal, Stogsdill, Levin and their parent caregivers argue that the SCDHHS 

violated the integration mandate of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to make 

reasonable modifications in the State’s programs, and that the district court erred in its 

rulings concerning these provisions. They also argue that the SCDHHS violated their 

constitutional and statutory rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including rights guaranteed 

under the Constitution of the United States and the Medicaid Act, particularly the 

reasonable promptness mandates at 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(8) 

and the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)(2) to assure the financial accountability. 

But in their opening brief, Stogsdill, Levin and their parent caregivers advance only 

conclusory arguments and fail to dispute the district court’s reasoning or to articulate any 

meritorious basis for reversal of the court’s judgment. This constitutes waiver under our 

precedent. See Grayson O. Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A 

party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop 

its argument––even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.”) (cleaned up); see also

Timpson ex rel. Timpson v. Anderson Cnty. Disabilities & Special Needs Bd., 31 F.4th 238, 

256–57 (4th Cir. 2022) (finding appellants’ argument waived where they “presented no 

basis for reversing the judgment below.”). And to the extent not waived, upon review of 

the record, we affirm the district court and find no reversible error.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069 Doc: 70 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 5 of 6
6

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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069 Doc: 70 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 6 of 6