Opinion
No. 16-2217
06-07-2017
TONEY A. SCHLOSS; STUART SCHLOSS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WILLIAM R. ABEY, Defendant - Appellee. and MICHAEL LEWIS, Defendant.
Robert B. Schulman, Leslie D. Hershfield, Eric Radz, SCHULMAN, HERSHFIELD & GILDEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Ronald M. Levitan, Phillip M. Pickus, Assistant Attorneys General, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
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) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Ronald M. Levitan, Phillip M. Pickus, Assistant Attorneys General, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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