James Washington v. Giant of Maryland, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-02599-PWG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999626060].. [15-1190]

Appeal: 15-1190

Doc: 29

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1190

JAMES WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GIANT OF MARYLAND, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13cv-02599-PWG)

Submitted:

July 21, 2015

Decided:

July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dmitry Balannik, TOUCHSTONE LAW FIRM, LLC, Rockville, Maryland for
Appellant.
Marianne Hogan, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1190

Doc: 29

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James Washington appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his

action

as

barred

by

the

applicable

six-month

statute

limitations set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 160(b) (2012).

of

On appeal,

we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s
brief.

See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,

178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating that failure to
raise

claim

and

support

argument

in

opening

brief

“triggers

abandonment of that claim on appeal”).
Because Washington’s brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition of his federal claims, he has
forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order.
Washington’s

argument

for

the

exercise

of

As to

supplemental

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (2012), we reject this argument
for the reasons stated by the district court.

Washington v. Giant

of Md., LLC, No. 8-13-cv-02599-PWG (D. Md. Feb. 6, 2015).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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

2