Opinion
20-1302
02-16-2022
IRENA J. BANKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
Paul V. Bennett, BENNETT & ELLISON, P.C., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Gregory J. Swain, County Attorney, Kemp W. Hammond, Assistant County Attorney, Genevieve G. Marshall, Senior Assistant County Attorney, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 19, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01836-CCB)
ON BRIEF:
Paul V. Bennett, BENNETT & ELLISON, P.C., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant.
Gregory J. Swain, County Attorney, Kemp W. Hammond, Assistant County Attorney, Genevieve G. Marshall, Senior Assistant County Attorney, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Irena J. Banks appeals the district court's order granting the Board of Education for Anne Arundel County ("the Board") summary judgment on her race and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; age discrimination claims, brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634; retaliation claims, brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654; and retaliation and race and age discrimination claims, brought pursuant to the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-606(a)(1)(i). We affirm.
It is well settled that "contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned." Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 249 (4th Cir. 2013) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). A party therefore waives review of any issues not fully briefed and developed in its opening brief. See Canady v. Crestar Mortg. Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Caldwell, 7 F.4th 191, 212 n.16 (4th Cir. 2021) ("Any other arguments raised for the first time in his Reply Brief . . . we deem waived."); Hensley on behalf of N.C. v. Price, 876 F.3d 573, 580 & n.5 (4th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that an argument is waived where the opening brief fails to include the basis for it, including "'citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which appellant relies'" (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A))).
In granting the Board's motion, the district court assumed that Banks met her burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation and found that those claims failed because Banks failed to establish pretext. The court also rejected any claims premised on a job offer rescission after finding that those claims were not properly exhausted, and that Banks failed to adequately plead a claim premised on the Board's failure to hire her in 2018. Banks does not challenge the district court's dispositive holdings that she failed to establish pretext for her discrimination and retaliation claims. Banks also fails to raise a meaningful challenge to the court's holdings pertaining to the 2018 failure-to-hire and the offer rescission. Banks has thus waived this court's review of the appealed-from order. See Suarez-Valenzuela, 714 F.3d at 249.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's order. 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