Opinion ID: 4013395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The First Level of Waiver

Text: Today the panel has remanded by way of an order because the magistrate judge’s order and the motion itself were “dispositive in effect.” To reach this issue, the panel necessarily had to 7 find that it was appropriate to consider the Estate’s newly advanced argument in its reply. However, “it is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned.” A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, MD, 515 F.3d 356, 369 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004)). “[I]n rare circumstances, appellate courts, in their discretion, may overlook this rule and others like it if they determine that a ‘miscarriage of justice’ would otherwise result.” Id. Perhaps the majority found that the supplemental briefing ordered obviated any prejudice to the City. See Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895, 921 (4th Cir. 2015) (stating the purpose of this doctrine “is to avoid unfairness to an appellee and minimize the ‘risk of an improvident or ill-advised opinion being issued on an unbriefed issue.’”) (quoting United States v. Leeson, 453 F.3d 631, 638 n.4 (4th Cir. 2006)). Nevertheless, as explained below, this is but one instance of the Estate’s failure to fully present its arguments to the appropriate judicial body. Accordingly, I would find that this is not the rare exception to this rule of waiver.