Frison v. Criswell Power Sports , 153 F. App'x 909 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1415
ELLIS SCOTT FRISON, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CRISWELL POWER SPORTS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-04-2093-AW)
Submitted: October 21, 2005 Decided: November 14, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
E. SCOTT FRISON, JR., LAW FIRM OF E. SCOTT FRISON, JR., Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Stephen D. Weiss, LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN D.
WEISS, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ellis Scott Frison, III, appeals the district court’s
order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Frison contends for
the first time on appeal that the district judge was biased against
his counsel and should have recused himself. Claims raised for the
first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional
circumstances. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993). No such extraordinary circumstances exist in this case, so
we decline to address this claim. Moreover, although Frison’s
opening brief recited the facts giving rise to his complaint, that
brief did not challenge the district court’s order dismissing his
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; his only claim in
this regard was first raised in his reply brief. Arguments not
raised in the opening brief are deemed waived. See Yousefi v. U.S.
I.N.S., 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Frison is
foreclosed from challenging the substance of the district court’s
dismissal order.
In sum, we affirm the district court’s final order, and
we deny Frison’s motions to supplement his brief and to file a
supplemental joint appendix. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -