evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.” Suter v. United States, 441 F.3d 306, 310 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). As an additional basis for affirmance, Kimble’s complaint failed to allege any facts related to Washington Laser Eye Center’s citizenship, and the court was entitled to dismiss the action based on Defendants’ facial jurisdictional challenge. See Kerns, 585 F.3d at 192. In addressing the dismissal order, Kim-ble raises a number of arguments for the first time on appeal or for the first time in his appellate reply briefs. These issues are not properly before us, and we decline to consider them. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
holding argument not raised in opening brief but raised for the first time in reply brief was waived recognizing that issues raised in reply brief generally are not considered holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before this court holding that an argument raised only in fact section of opening brief and in reply brief is not properly raised holding that issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not reviewable