reasonable inferences.” Brown v. Kan. City Freightliner Sales, Inc., 617 F.3d 995, 997 (8th Cir.2010). We affirm a grant of summary judgment only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Because Brown’s brief, filled as it is with unsupported legal and factual assertions, sometimes borders on incomprehensible, the precise issues she is raising in this appeal are unclear. Like the district court, we struggle to decipher seemingly inconsistent claims, and we have interpreted Brown’s counsel’s pages of arguments as favorably as the record allows. From our reading, we infer Brown has abandoned her Title VII gender discrimination claim, see Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>), and continues to press her Title VII
holding an argument made in plaintiffs reply brief but not in their opening brief waived holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief holding an argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding a claim is waived when there is no meaningful argument on the claim in the opening brief