Opinion ID: 2978747
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Fox appeals the denial of his suppression motion, claiming that the warrant authorizing the search of the house he shared with Leonard was not supported by probable cause. We need not reach this issue, however, because it is one of two alternative grounds on which the district court based its decision. Fox failed to challenge the district court’s second ground, the Leon good faith exception. Two isolated sentences in an opening brief that make cursory reference to an officer’s reasonable actions are not enough to constitute an argument. See McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived. It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to . . . put flesh on its bones.”) (quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). Since the district court’s ruling on the good faith exception sufficed to justify its denial of Fox’s motion to suppress, Fox’s failure to appeal that aspect of the court’s decision means the denial of the motion still stands. See Elite Sportwear Prods., Inc. v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 270 F. App’x 153, 154 (3d Cir. March 18, 2008) (“[W]e . . . will affirm because these unappealed aspects of the District Court’s decision represent an adequate and independent ground for [the district court’s judgment].”). -3- No. 09-5974 USA v. Jimmy Fox Fox additionally tries to argue that the search warrant did not authorize the search of his car because it failed to particularly describe the vehicle. This argument, however, is also waived because Fox failed to object to the R&R’s analysis that the search of his car was proper. See United States v. Miller, 227 F. App’x 446, 452 (6th Cir. March 28, 2007) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985)).