McKinzy v. Interstate Brands Corp. , 367 F. App'x 912 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    February 25, 2010
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    MICHAEL E. MCKINZY, SR.,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                     No. 09-3280
    (D.C. No. 2:08-CV-02649-CM-JPO)
    INTERSTATE BRANDS                                       (D. Kan.)
    CORPORATION,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before HARTZ, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    Pro se plaintiff Michael E. McKinzy, Sr., appeals from the district court’s
    order dismissing his discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Interstate
    Brands Corporation, as a sanction for disobeying the court’s discovery orders.
    Mr. McKinzy never addresses the district court’s order that dismissed his
    lawsuit as a sanction; instead he complains about its earlier orders denying,
    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    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    not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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
    consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    without prejudice, his motions to amend his complaint and for summary
    judgment. However, these orders have no affect on the outcome and we will not
    consider them on appeal. Orr v. City of Albuquerque, 
    417 F.3d 1144
    , 1154
    (10th Cir. 2005).
    As to the order of dismissal, Mr. McKinzy never mentions it in his brief,
    and perforce, never explains any error. “We routinely have declined to consider
    arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an appellant’s
    opening brief. Stated differently, the omission of an issue in an opening brief
    generally forfeits appellate consideration of that issue.” Bronson v. Swensen, 
    500 F.3d 1099
    , 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
    The appeal is DISMISSED.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    PER CURIAM
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-3280

Citation Numbers: 367 F. App'x 912

Judges: Anderson, Hartz, McKAY, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/25/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023