Toney Schloss v. William Abey , 691 F. App'x 710 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Ronald M. Levitan, Phillip M. Pickus, Assistant Attorneys General, Pikesville, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
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