Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • McKinzy v. Interstate Brands Corp., 10th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Michael McKinzy. The district court had dismissed McKinzy's discrimination lawsuit against his former employer as a sanction for disobeying discovery orders. The appeals court found that McKinzy failed to address the district court's dismissal order in his brief and therefore forfeited appellate consideration of the issue. As McKinzy did not explain any error in the dismissal order, the appeals court dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-02-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-3280

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Michael McKinzy. The district court had dismissed McKinzy's discrimination lawsuit against his former employer as a sanction for disobeying discovery orders. The appeals court found that McKinzy failed to address the district court's dismissal order in his brief and therefore forfeited appellate consideration of the issue. As McKinzy did not explain any error in the dismissal order, the appeals court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views2 pages

    McKinzy v. Interstate Brands Corp., 10th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Michael McKinzy. The district court had dismissed McKinzy's discrimination lawsuit against his former employer as a sanction for disobeying discovery orders. The appeals court found that McKinzy failed to address the district court's dismissal order in his brief and therefore forfeited appellate consideration of the issue. As McKinzy did not explain any error in the dismissal order, the appeals court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    FILED

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    February 25, 2010


    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    Clerk of Court

    MICHAEL E. MCKINZY, SR.,


    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.

    No. 09-3280
    (D.C. No. 2:08-CV-02649-CM-JPO)
    (D. Kan.)

    INTERSTATE BRANDS
    CORPORATION,
    Defendant-Appellee.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

    Before HARTZ, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

    Pro se plaintiff Michael E. McKinzy, Sr., appeals from the district courts
    order dismissing his discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Interstate
    Brands Corporation, as a sanction for disobeying the courts discovery orders.
    Mr. McKinzy never addresses the district courts 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 appellants
    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-

    You might also like