Toney Schloss v. William R. Abey


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01938-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000096268]. [16-2217]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2217 Doc: 75 Filed: 06/07/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2217 TONEY A. SCHLOSS; STUART SCHLOSS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WILLIAM R. ABEY, Defendant - Appellee. and MICHAEL LEWIS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01938-JFM) Submitted: May 31, 2017 Decided: June 7, 2017 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert B. Schulman, Leslie D. Hershfield, Eric Radz, SCHULMAN, HERSHFIELD & GILDEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Appeal: 16-2217 Doc: 75 Filed: 06/07/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Ronald M. Levitan, Phillip M. Pickus, Assistant Attorneys General, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-2217 Doc: 75 Filed: 06/07/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Toney A. Schloss and Stuart Schloss appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 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 (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 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?