
    IN RE: Erik M. DUNLAP, Debtor. Erik M. Dunlap, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-1227
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 24, 2017
    Decided: September 7, 2017
    Kenneth Love, KARRENSTEIN, LOVE, AND DILLENBECK, Matthews, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa P. Sumner, NEXSEN PRUET, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

During the course of his bankruptcy proceedings, Erik M. Dunlap filed an adversary proceeding seeking partial discharge of his student loan debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) (2012). The bankruptcy court dismissed Dunlap’s complaint. Dunlap appealed and the district court dismissed Dunlap’s appeal for failure to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1) as Dunlap had failed properly to designate the issues for appeal. Dunlap now appeals to this court. In his opening brief, however, Dunlap failed to challenge the procedural basis for the district court’s dismissal of his appeal. Dunlap, therefore, has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); see also Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 605 n.13 (4th Cir. 2009) (failure to challenge issue on appeal waives appellate review of issue); Skinner v. First Union Nat’l Bank, No. 98-1627, 1999 WL 261944, at *1-*2 (4th Cir. May 3, 1999) (argued but unpublished) (where district court dismissed appeal of bankruptcy court order for failure to timely file brief, only orders properly on appeal were district court’s orders of dismissal and denying reconsideration).

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  