UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1102
WILLIAM A. WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
VICTORIA B. HAINES; DEBRA E. MCGHEE; ALPHONSO
JACKSON, Secretary of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (7:05-cv-00020-jct)
Submitted: June 28, 2006 Decided: July 17, 2006
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Kennett, Jr., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United
States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William A. White appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
White filed a civil complaint against Defendants,
officers of the Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) agency,
alleging that they retaliated against him and violated his First
Amendment right to free speech by investigating whether, as a
landlord, his rental practices discriminated against African-
Americans. In his appellate brief, White has not challenged the
district court’s decisions that he must exhaust his administrative
remedies before suing Defendants in their official capacities under
the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacities.
Challenges to these aspects of the district court’s decision are
accordingly deemed abandoned. 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 brief are
abandoned”).
Of the two issues White raises in his appellate brief,
the issue of whether he was denied due process was not raised in
the district court. We will not consider claims raised for the
- 2 -
first time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances. See Muth v.
United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Because White does
not present exceptional circumstances meriting review of his due
process argument on appeal, we do not consider the merits of this
claim.
The remaining issue is whether HUD’s Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity had the authority to investigate his
rental practices as a landlord, or whether HUD investigated his
rental practices without an “aggrieved party.” White stated in his
complaint that one of his former tenants lodged a complaint
regarding his rental practices with the Roanoke Branch of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
The NAACP in turn made a complaint to HUD. We conclude that the
Roanoke Chapter of the NAACP was a proper “aggrieved party” whose
complaint HUD had a statutory duty to investigate. See Havens
Realty Corp v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982); 42 U.S.C.
§ 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv) (2000). Accordingly, we reject White’s
argument that HUD lacked the authority to commence an investigation
into his rental practices.
We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. White v. Haines, No. 7:05-cv-00020-jct (W.D. Va.
Dec. 19, 2005). 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
- 3 -