UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN B. MUMFORD, d/b/a The

Washington Group,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TRIDENT IA INVESTMENT POOL;

TRIDENT II INVESTMENT POOL;

TRIDENT INVESTMENT AND

MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED;

TRIDENT INVESTMENT LTD.; ANTON

SCHRAFL; MICHAEL SCHMIDT; MARTIN

KNECHTLI; FRANCIS LANG; ALBERT No. 98-1686

PIESSEVAUX; FELIX GAEHWILER,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

THE FOUNDERS COURT-CAYMAN

ISLAND FUND; THE FOUNDERS COURTUSA FUND; PETER WIRSTROM;

NIXON B. HARE; BROWN SHIPLEY &

COMPANY, LIMITED; FOUNDERS COURT,

INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-94-663-2)

Submitted: March 2, 1999

Decided: March 29, 1999

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Palmer Freeman, Jr., SUGGS & KELLY, LAWYERS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Mack Sperling, Kearns Davis,

BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD,

L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John B. Mumford appeals the district court's order granting the

motion to dismiss filed by Trident Investment and Management Limited, Trident Investments Limited, and Anton Schrafl (the "Trident

Defendants") under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and dismissing his civil

diversity action alleging claims of breach of contract, guaranty, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade

practices, and third-party beneficiary. Mumford also appeals the district court's order dismissing his claims against Michael Schmidt,

Martin Knechtli, Francis Lang, Albert Piessevaux, and Felix Gaehwiler for failure to timely serve the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m). We affirm.

Mumford essentially claims on appeal that had he been allowed to

conduct discovery, he may have been able to prove his claims against

the Trident Defendants. The argument in his appellate brief, however,

fails to challenge specifically the basis for the district court's findings

with regard to his claims of breach of contract, guaranty, promissory

estoppel, quantum meruit, and fraud. Consequently, we deem these

issues waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6) (stating that "argument

 2
must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented,

and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and

parts of the record relied on"); Tucker v. Waddell, 83 F.3d 688, 690

n.1 (4th Cir. 1996) (failing to present argument in appellate brief

waives appellate review). Likewise, we decline to review Mumford's

claim that he was a third-party beneficiary because he failed to raise

the issue in his appellate brief. See Tucker, 83 F.3d at 690 n.1.

With regard to his claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices and

the dismissal of the unserved Defendants under Rule 4(m), we have

reviewed the district court's orders, the briefs, and the joint appendix

and find no reversible error or abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we

affirm the denial of relief on the reasoning of the district court. See

Mumford v. Trident IA Investment Pool, No. CA-94-663-2 (M.D.N.C.

Mar. 31, 1998). 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

 3