Case ID: f-appx_577/html/0848-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ronald Merl McKAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Twin Rivers Land & Cattle Company, LP, a New Mexico limited partnership; Twin Rivers Land & Cattle Co., LP, LLC, a New Mexico limited liability company as general partner of Twin Rivers Land & Cattle Company, LP, Plaintiffs, v. A.Y. HAYES, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-7033.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Aug. 28, 2014.
    Ronald Merl McKay, Dalhart, TX, pro se.
    Stephen Brent Bahner, Fischl Culp McMillin Chaffin Bahner & Long, Ard-more, OK, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

After a real estate deal went awry, Ronald Merl McKay sued Acie Hayes, Jr. Mr. Hayes moved for summary judgment, but Mr. McKay never responded — even after the district court extended his deadline and warned him that, if he didn’t respond, the district court would dismiss the case or deem the motion confessed. The district court, under a local rule, deemed the motion confessed and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On appeal, Mr. McKay reargues the merits of his case but he does not directly address the district court’s ruling, let alone identify any defect in it. While this court takes seriously its obligation to construe liberally pro se filings like Mr. McKay’s, it will not invent arguments for reversal that a litigant does not even touch upon: “the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir.2005).

The judgment is affirmed. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.