* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 10 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT HERMANSEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. STATE OF UTAH; UTAH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY W. DELAND; LYNN J. LUND, Inspector General; TOBY JACQUEZ; DAVID R. FRANCHINA; WILLIAM FOWLKE; MICHAEL SANDERS; CASEY ROMIJN; DONALD E. KITCHELL; JAMES HORLACHER; TED COOLEY; ROBERT N. WHITE; and ROBERT LARSEN, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-4056 (D.C. No. 89-CV-1065) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , BARRETT , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.1 Plaintiff does not appeal from the court’s rulings dismissing defendants

Kitchell, Romijn, Cooley, Jacquez and White. -2- After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Robert Hermansen appeals from the distric t court’s rulings granting summary judgment to remaining defendants i n plaintiff’s civil rights suit. 1 On appeal, he contends that summary judgment was wrongly granted in light of genuine issues of material fact regarding plaintiff’s conspiracy claims, that the court abused its discretion in striking pl aintiff’s response to defendants’ summary judgment motions, that he should have recei ved a hearing on his first amendment claim, and that the court wrongly limitedevidence of damages. We affirm the district court’s rulings for two reas ons. First, plaintiff is precluded from any appellate review of the magistrate judge’s decisions to strike his response to summary judgment and to limit evide nce of damages because he failed to object to those rulings as required by Fe d. R. Civ. P. 72(a). See Pippinger v. Rubin , 129 F.3d 519, 533-34 (10th Cir. 1997). Second, p laintiff’s remaining arguments on appeal are too vague and con clusory to allow for meaningful appellate review. We agree with defendants that plaintiff fails to-3-

identify any genuine issues of material fact, fails to point to evidence in the record establishing such issues, and fails to chall enge the legal basis for the district court’s determination of his first amendme nt claim. Perfunctory complaints which fail to frame and develop an issue are insufficient to invoke appellate review. See Murrell v. Shalala , 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994). Conclusory reference to district court erro r without sufficient citation to authority is not adequate appellate argument. See Brownlee v. Lear Siegler Management Servs. Corp. , 15 F.3d 976, 977-78 (10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental appendix is GRANTED; defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s reply brief is DENIE D.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge