Case ID: f-appx_563/html/0648-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GREGORY A. PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richita Marie HACKFORD; Nathan S. Collet; Opal S. Hackford; Richard D. Hackford, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of UTAH; Duchesne County; Roosevelt City Corporation; Pete Butcher, Officer/Detective; Duchesne County Jail; Wallace Hendricks; Roosevelt Adult Probation & Parole; Tom Kosmack; Brad Draper, Officer; Uintah County; Vernal City Corporation; Uintah County Jail; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; Roosevelt City Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-4027.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    June 4, 2014.
    Richita Marie Hackford, Roosevelt, UT, pro se.
    Nathan S. Collet, Ft. Duchesne, UT, pro se.
    Opal S. Hackford, Roosevelt, UT, pro se.
    Richard D. Hackford, Roosevelt, UT, pro se.
    Scott D. Cheney, J. Clifford Petersen, Stanford E. Purser, Richard Rathbun, Office of the Attorney General for the state of Utah, Michael D. Johnston, Daniel S. McConkie, Analise Q. Wilson, Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

GREGORY A. PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

The district court dismissed this case because the plaintiffs failed to serve process on the defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. We conclude that the plaintiffs have forfeited their right to have that judgment reviewed. Even though the plaintiffs are pro se, their briefs contain no perceivable argument that the district erred in dismissing the case. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840-41 (10th Cir.2005) (affirming dismissal where a pro se plaintiff made no argument of substance in his briefs). We affirm the district court’s judgment. 
      
       After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. Accordingly, the case is ordered submitted without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, claim preclusion, and issue preclusion. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.