Opinion ID: 492644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jackson's Pendent Claims

Text: 23 After disposing of Jackson's federal claims, the district court asserted that it was within its discretion [to] decline to consider the pendent State claims.... Jackson, No. 85-0264, mem. op. at 2 (W.D.Pa. June 11, 1986). Convinced that these pendent claims raise[d] no peculiarly difficult or doubtful questions of State law [that] should be reserved for disposition by State courts, id., however, the district court also granted appellees' motion for summary judgment on these claims. 24 We conclude that this aspect of the district court judgment also has not been appealed. The only reference to these claims is the final words on the final page of Jackson's brief, which asks us to remand for trial on the pendent state claims. Brief for Appellant at 50. This is insufficient to put the issue before us. See Fed.R.App.P. 28(a)(2) (appellant's brief must contain a statement of the issues presented for review); cf. Brown v. Sielaff, 474 F.2d 826, 828 (3d Cir.1973) (per curiam) (citing Rule 28 for the proposition that, where the appellant has not pressed a point in this appeal, we are unable to notice it). Further, these claims are not addressed at all in Jackson's Reply Brief and were not raised in the course of his oral argument. Accordingly, under the law of this Circuit, he has waived this issue on appeal. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council For Clean Air, 755 F.2d at 40 n. 2 (issue not addressed in appellant's brief, reply brief or at oral argument); accord Lugar v. Texaco, Inc., 755 F.2d 53, 57 n.2 (3d Cir.1985); NLRB v. Wolff & Munier, Inc., 747 F.2d 156, 167 (3d Cir.1984) (Sloviter, J., dissenting); Battle v. Pennsylvania, 629 F.2d 269, 271 n. 1 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied sub nom. Scanlon v. Battle, 452 U.S. 968, 101 S.Ct. 3123, 69 L.Ed.2d 981 (1981).