* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions 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, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Robert Hermansen appeals from the district court’s rulings

granting summary judgment to remaining defendants in 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 plaintiff’s response to defendants’

summary judgment motions, that he should have received a hearing on his first

amendment claim, and that the court wrongly limited evidence of damages. 

We affirm the district court’s rulings for two reasons. First, plaintiff is

precluded from any appellate review of the magistrate judge’s decisions to strike

his response to summary judgment and to limit evidence of damages because he

failed to object to those rulings as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). See

Pippinger v. Rubin, 129 F.3d 519, 533-34 (10th Cir. 1997). Second, plaintiff’s

remaining arguments on appeal are too vague and conclusory 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 challenge the legal basis for the

district court’s determination of his first amendment 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 error 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 DENIED. 

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe

Circuit Judge