Case Name: Toney A. SCHLOSS; Stuart Schloss, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William R. ABEY, Defendant-Appellee, and Michael Lewis, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-07
Citations: 691 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 16-2217
Parties: Toney A. SCHLOSS; Stuart Schloss, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William R. ABEY, Defendant-Appellee, and Michael Lewis, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 710–710

Head Matter:
Toney A. SCHLOSS; Stuart Schloss, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William R. ABEY, Defendant-Appellee, and Michael Lewis, Defendant.
No. 16-2217
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2017
Decided: June 7, 2017
Robert B. Schulman, Leslie D. Hersh-field, Eric Radz, SCHULMAN, HERSH-FIELD & GILDEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Ronald M. Levitan, Phillip M. Pickus, Assistant Attorneys General, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appel-lee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Toney A. Schloss and Stuart Schloss appeal the district court's order denying relief on them 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record with regard to Toney Schloss' claims and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of these claims for the reasons stated by the district court. Schloss v. Abey, No. 1:15-cv-01938-JFM, 2016 WL 1451246 (D. Md. Apr. 12, 2016).
The district court denied relief on Stuart Schloss' sole claim, for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law, on two independent grounds: failure to prove extreme and outrageous conduct, and failure to demonstrate severe emotional harm. Because Stuart Schloss' opening brief does not address the second ground for the district court's decision, he has abandoned this claim on appeal. See Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013).
We therefore affirm the district court's judgment in its entirety. 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