oral argument before us Appellants’ counsel denied that her statement was intended to encompass the claims asserted against the BCB Members. In our view, counsel’s ambiguous statement made at the summary-judgment hearing is simply not clear enough to constitute an abandonment of Appellants’ damage claims asserted against Governor Haley in her official capacity. See Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 354 (4th Cir. 2007) (“Federal law is well-settled that waiver is the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right, and courts have been disinclined lightly to presume that valuable rights have been conceded in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). Cf. Santos v. Frederick Cty. Bd. Of Comm’rs, 725 F.3d 451, 463 (4th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>); Feikema v. Texaco, Inc., 16 F.3d 1408, 1417
holding that counsels ambiguous statement during argument on summary judgment motion did not constitute waiver holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that the failure to oppose a basis for summary judgment constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that hearsay statement did not constitute competent evidence and thus could not be considered in opposition to motion for summary judgment