McDaniel (Tonya) v. City & County of Denver ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           FILED
                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                  Tenth Circuit
    
                                 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                December 16, 2015
                             _________________________________
                                                                      Elisabeth A. Shumaker
                                                                          Clerk of Court
    TONYA MCDANIEL,
    
          Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    
    ASHLEY MCDANIEL,
    
          Plaintiff,
    
    v.                                                     No. 15-1302
                                                  (D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00989-LTB)
    CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER;                               (D. Colo.)
    DENVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY;
    INTERNAL AFFAIRS; INDEPENDENT
    MONITOR; GLEN LEVY; DIANE
    ARAGON; OFFICER CHERYL SMITH;
    OFFICER W. BOHM, badge number
    13070; OFFICER LITTLE, badge number
    07040; DETECTIVE LORI FREUND;
    JUDGE KENNETH LAFF,
    
         Defendants - Appellees.
    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    ASHLEY MCDANIEL,
    
          Plaintiff - Appellant,
    
    and
    
    TONYA MCDANIEL,
    
          Plaintiff,
    v.
                                                           No. 15-1303
    CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER;                    (D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00989-LTB)
    DENVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY;                                (D. Colo.)
    INTERNAL AFFAIRS; INDEPENDENT
    MONITOR; GLEN LEVY; DIANE
    ARAGON; OFFICER CHERYL SMITH;
    OFFICER W. BOHM, badge number
    13070; OFFICER LITTLE, badge number
    07040; DETECTIVE LORI FREUND;
    JUDGE KENNETH LAFF,
    
          Defendants - Appellees.
    
                            _________________________________
    
                                ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                            _________________________________
    
    Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                     _________________________________
    
          Tonya McDaniel and Ashley McDaniel appeal the district court’s dismissal of
    
    their complaint for failure to comply with two court orders. Because we conclude that
    
    the McDaniels have forfeited appellate review, we affirm.
    
          The McDaniels, representing themselves, attempted to sue 12 defendants for
    
    19 claims related to the investigation of a property dispute. The district court
    
    dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to
    
    comply with two court orders to cure deficiencies in the complaint. On appeal, the
    
    McDaniels ask this court “to reopen the case and allow it to simply be heard by the
    
    courts.” Aplt. Br. at 4. They argue “dismissal was a harsh way to end the proceedings
    
    due to the case.” Id.
    
          *
            After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
    these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not
    binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
    collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value. See
    Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
                                               2
           We review a district court’s dismissal of an action under Rule 41(b) based on a
    
    party’s failure to comply with a court order for an abuse of discretion. See Gripe v.
    
    City of Enid, 
    312 F.3d 1184
    , 1188 (10th Cir. 2002).
    
           Because the McDaniels proceed pro se, we liberally construe their brief and
    
    apply a more forgiving standard than the standard we apply to attorney-drafted
    
    filings. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 
    425 F.3d 836
    , 840 (10th Cir.
    
    2005). But pro se parties must follow the same procedural rules that govern other
    
    litigants. And we won’t act as their advocate by formulating arguments or scouring
    
    the record on their behalf. Id.
    
           In their brief, the McDaniels don’t argue the district court incorrectly applied
    
    the facts or the law. Nor do they offer any legal authority, citations to the record, or
    
    legal argument for us to review. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (requiring
    
    “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities
    
    and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”); Bronson v. Swensen, 
    500 F.3d 1099
    , 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting we routinely refuse to consider arguments that
    
    fail to meet Rule 28’s requirements). Because the McDaniels have forfeited appellate
    
    review by failing to assert a legal argument, we affirm the district court’s dismissal
    
    of their complaint.
    
           Finally, because we conclude the McDaniels have failed to offer “a reasoned,
    
    nonfrivolous argument” on appeal, McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 
    115 F.3d 809
    ,
    
    812 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted), we deny their motions to
    
    
    
                                                3
    proceed in forma pauperis and remind them of their immediate obligation to pay the
    
    filing fee in full.
    
                                             Entered for the Court
    
    
                                             Nancy L. Moritz
                                             Circuit Judge
    
    
    
    
                                             4