With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claiming that all of Oja’s state law claims were preempted by the MDA. The district court denied Howmedica’s motion and its motion for reconsideration. At the close of the evidence, Howmedica moved for a directed verdict on all of Oja’s state law claims based on MDA preemption. The district court denied the motion. After the jury returned its verdict, Howmedica renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing only that the MDA preempted Oja’s negligent failure to warn claim. The district court denied the motion. On appeal, Howmedi-ca again argues only that the MDA preempts Oja's negligent failure to warn claim. Thus, we do not address whether the MDA preempts any of Oja’s other state law claims. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d 979, 984 n. 7 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Oja underwent her PCA hip surgery on July

A: holding that the petitioners failure to address an issue in the argument portion of his opening brief waived the issue
B: holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue
C: holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief
D: holding that a party abandoned an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief
B.