UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1846

DAWN K. CLARK, On behalf of herself and others similarly 

situated; ELIZABETH TIEDEMANN, On behalf of herself and 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs – Appellants, 

v. 

HUMANE SOCIETY OF CARROLL COUNTY, INCORPORATED, A Maryland 

non-Stock Corporation; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CARROLL 

COUNTY, MARYLAND, A Maryland Body Politic; CAROLYN NICKY 

RATCLIFF, Director, Humane Society of Carroll County, Inc., 

In her individual capacity; G. MICHAEL KEINER, Officer, 

Humane Society of Carroll County, Inc., In his individual 

capacity; BRIAN RUPP, Chief of Officers, Humane Society of 

Carroll County, Inc., In his individual capacity; MARK 

MILLER, Officer, Humane Society of Carroll County, Inc., In 

his individual capacity; KAREN BAKER, Officer, Humane 

Society of Carroll County, Inc., In her individual 

capacity, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District 

Judge. (1:11-cv-00108-WMN) 

Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: March 1, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
2

Steven L. Tiedemann, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellants. Kevin 

Karpinski, E.I. Cornbrooks, IV, KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP,

P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
3

PER CURIAM: 

Dawn K. Clark and Elizabeth Tiedemann appeal the 

district court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil 

rights action. Appellants argue on appeal that the court erred 

in dismissing their claims for violations of the Fourth, Sixth, 

and Fourteenth Amendments resulting from the assessment against 

them of fines in notices of violations issued pursuant to 

section 81-16(B) of the Code of Carroll County, Maryland. We 

affirm. 

We review de novo a district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) 

dismissal, “focus[ing] only on the legal sufficiency of the 

complaint.” Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 

2008). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must state 

“a plausible claim for relief” that “permit[s] the court to 

infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct” based upon 

“its judicial experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). 

Upon review of Appellants’ briefs, we conclude that 

they fail to present their arguments that the district court 

erred in dismissing their claims alleging violations of the 

Fourth and Sixth Amendments in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 

28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he [appellant’s] argument . . . must 

contain . . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, 
4

with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on 

which the appellant relies.”). Accordingly, we deem these 

arguments waived. Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 

562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Appellants also argue that the district court erred in 

dismissing their challenge on Fourteenth Amendment grounds to 

the propriety of the process afforded to them to challenge the 

fines assessed in the notices of violation. We conclude after 

review of the record that this claim was properly dismissed 

because Appellants lack standing to raise it. See Heckler v. 

Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 738 (1984); Star Scientific, Inc. v. 

Beales, 278 F.3d 339, 358 (4th Cir. 2002).

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 the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED