of outrage claim In Count 7 of his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim for the tort of outrage (i.e. intentional infliction of emotional distress). Plaintiff does not assert any factual allegations in Count VII, but instead incorporates by reference each of the previously alleged factual allegations. Defendant has moved for dismissal on this count, arguing that the Amended Complaint fails to state a cognizable intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. In his Response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff failed to address this claim or respond to Defendant’s argument. Therefore, Plaintiff has waived opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim, and this claim is dismissed. See Humphrey v. U.S. Attorney General’s Office, 279 Fed.Appx. 328, 331 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Scott v. Tennessee, 878 F.2d 382, 1989 WL
holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion recognizing that a partys lack of response to a motion or argument therein is grounds for the district court to assume opposition to the motion is waived and grant the motion holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived