Josephat Mua v. California Casualty Indemnity , 633 F. App'x 836 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2048
JOSEPHAT MUA; FRANCOISE VANDENPLAS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE; MARSDEN & SELEDEE,
LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-03810-PJM)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas, Appellants Pro Se. Thomas
V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES,
Baltimore, Maryland; Joel D. Seledee, MARSDEN & SELEDEE, LLC,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants, Josephat Mua and Francoise Vandenplas, appeal
the district court’s order: (1) dismissing with prejudice their
claims stemming from California Casualty Indemnity Exchange’s
(“CCIE”) non-renewal of an automobile insurance policy and
failure to pay benefits, and Marsden & Seledee, LLC’s
participation in a related state court action seeking the
recovery of money CCIE wrongfully paid Appellants for property
damage; and (2) dismissing without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction Appellants’ claims for non-property damage
benefits payable under the insurance policy. Appellants have
filed several motions with this court, including a motion to
place this appeal in abeyance pending resolution of the related
state court case, and a motion for leave to file a motion to
vacate the district court’s judgment.
Appellants’ failure to challenge on appeal the district
court’s dispositive holdings amounts to a waiver of appellate
review over those holdings. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court
will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal
brief.”); United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th
Cir. 2004) (“It is a well settled rule that contentions not
raised in the argument section of the opening brief are
abandoned.”). To the extent Appellants seek to raise new claims
against Appellees, Appellants may not do so for the first time
2
on appeal. See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d
403, 411 n.10 (4th Cir. 2010) (“We have previously made it clear
that the failure to present an argument to the district court
constitutes waiver before this court.”); Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that issues raised for
the first time on appeal are waived unless plain error or a
fundamental miscarriage of justice would result). Because we
find no reversible error by the district court, we deny the
pending motions and affirm the district court’s judgment. Mua
v. Cal. Cas. Indem. Exch., No. 8:14-cv-03810-PJM (D. Md. filed
Aug. 17, 2015, entered Aug. 19, 2015). 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