Grace J. Hadeed and Joan Winter appeal from the district court’s order granting Thomas and Glenda Abraham’s motion for additional fees and costs under the fee-shifting provisions of the Fair Housing Act, see 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2) (2000). Ha-deed and Winter assert that our denial of sanctions under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in their prior appeal, see Hadeed v. Abraham, 103 F.App. 706 (4th Cir. June 30, 2004) (unpublished), precluded the district court from awarding additional fees and costs associated with the Abrahams’ defense of that appeal. Because Hadeed and Winter raise that issue for the first time on appeal, we decline to address it. See Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (stating general rule that appellate court generally does not consider issues raised for first time on appeal and noting exception not applicable here). Moreover, Hadeed and Winter do not challenge the grounds on which the district court relied to impose additional attorney’s fees and costs. See United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n. 8 (4th Cir. 2004) (“It is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned.”). Thus, they have waived appellate review of the court’s order.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny the Abrahams’ motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the Abrahams’ motion for Rule 38 sanctions and order Hadeed and Winter to pay $6525 in attorney’s fees and $562.40 in costs. Finally, we grant the Abrahams’ motion to strike from the joint appendix Hadeed and Winter’s motion to dismiss the Abrahams’ motion for additional fees and costs on the ground that it was not filed in the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED