Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-03280/USCOURTS-ca10-09-03280-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 25, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL E. MCKINZY, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

INTERSTATE BRANDS

CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-3280

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

(D. Kan.)

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,

Appellate Case: 09-3280 Document: 01018373725 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

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

Appellate Case: 09-3280 Document: 01018373725 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Page: 2