PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Sanchez appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion for
summary judgment. We review
summary judgments de novo and apply the same standard as the district court. Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345, 349 (5th Cir.2005). Appellant filed suit in this case because his severely disabled ten-year-old child became seriously ill. He attributed his child’s illness to the feeding tube food manufactured by Appellee Abbott Laboratories Inc. and shipped by Appellee Med-line Industries Inc. In granting the motion to dismiss, the district court found that proximate causation had not been shown between any potential contamination or spoilage of the food and the child’s subsequent illness.
Appellant’s brief advances several arguments regarding what he argues were improper exclusions of witness testimony and an affidavit by the district court. The district court concluded, though, that even if the evidence had been admitted, it still failed to show proximate causation of the child’s illness. Appellant’s brief concerns itself with admission of the testimony and the affidavit and does not meaningfully contest the independent causation ground for
summary judgment. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[Tjhe 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 thus deem the argument' to be conceded. See Local Union No. 898 of the Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. XL Elec., Inc., 380 F.3d 868, 871 (5th Cir.2004) (“The Union has not made any argument challenging the merits of the district court’s ultimate conclusion that the Agreement was properly terminated. The Union thus waived any argument along those lines....”); Green v.
State Bar, 27 F.3d 1083, 1089 (5th Cir.1994) (“A party who inadequately briefs an issue is considered to have abandoned the claim.”). Therefore, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.