Opinion
No. 09-1663.
Submitted: December 2, 2009.
Decided: December 16, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville, Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:05-cv-00090-LHT).
Michael David Bland, Weaver, Bennett Bland, PA, Matthews, North Carolina; Forrest A. Ferrell, Warren A. Hutton, Sigmon, Clark, Mackie, Hutton, Hanvey Ferrell, PA, Hickory, North Carolina; David Barry, Barry Associates, San Francisco, California, for Appellants. Douglas W. Ey, Jr., Catherine E. Thompson, Jason D. Evans, McGuirewoods, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Glen D. Nager, Lawrence D. Rosenberg, Jones Day, Washington, D.C.; Larry S. McDevitt, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes and Davis, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Valuepest.com of Charlotte, Incorporated, National Pest Control, Incorporated and Pest Pros, Incorporated (collectively "Valuepest.com") appeal the district court's order denying their amended motion to correct the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) and for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). The court denied the motion because Valuepest.com abandoned the issue raised in the motion by failing to raise it on appeal and because granting the requested relief would be an improper deviation from the mandate rule. We affirm.
In the opening brief, Valuepest.com argues the merits of the Rule 60 motion. However, it fails to discuss the mandate rule or whether the court correctly found it had abandoned the issue by failing to raise it on appeal. It is not until the reply brief that Valuepest.com raises either of these issues. In A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, MD, 515 F.3d 356, 369 (4th Cir. 2008), this court stated that `"[i]t is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief-axe abandoned.'" (quoting United States v. Al-Hamdi 356 F.3d 564, 571 n. 8 (4th Cir. 2004).). This court does not normally consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See SEC v. Pirate Investor, 580 F.3d 233, 255 n. 23 (4th Cir. 2009).
Because Valuepest.com failed to discuss the merits of the district court's reasons for denying the Rule 60 motion in the argument section of the opening brief, we consider any challenge to be abandoned. Accordingly, 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.