
    Kay F. PASCHAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leon LOTT, in his individual and official capacity; Stan Smith, in his individual and official capacity; Howard Hughes, in his individual and official capacity; Heidi Scott, a/k/a Heidi Jackson, in her individual and official capacity; Richland County, South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-7393
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 27, 2017
    Decided: May 5, 2017
    S. Jahue Moore, MOORE TAYLOR LAW FIRM, P.A., West Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew F. Linde-mann, Robert D. Garfield, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kay F. Paschal appeals from the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action. On appeal, Paschal questions whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendants. However, because Paschal has not presented this claim in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (“[T]he [appellant’s] argument ... must contain ... appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”), we deem it abandoned. Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 568 n.7 (4th Cir. 2015); Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Cir., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009); Williams v. Giant Food Inc,, 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).

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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  