T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ay 28, 2010 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT P RI NC E S S J . ANT HONY ,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t , N o. 09- 3364 v. D . K ansas A L O R IC A , IN C . ,

D efe ndant- A ppel l ee . ( D. C. No s . 2 : 0 8 - CV - 0 2 4 3 7 - CM- KGS a nd 2: 08 - CV - 02 43 8- J A R- K G S )

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e H A R T Z , ANDE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. P l a i n t i ff a n d a p p e l l a n t , P r i n c e s s An th o n y , a b l a c k fe ma l e , fi l e d t wo under l y i ng T i t l e V I I l aw s ui t s aft erdefe ndantand appe l l ee A l or i ca, I nc. t erm i nat ed herempl oym ent . T he tw o cas es w er e cons ol i dat ed. Fol l ow i ng-2-

r epea t ed att empt s t o compl et e di s covery , A l or i ca f i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the cas es . T he magi s tr at e j udge t o w hom the mat t erw as r efe rr ed r ecomm ended that the mot i on t o di s m i s s be gr ant ed as a s anct i on agai ns tM s . A nthony . T he m ag istrate jud g e d esc ri b ed M s. A n tho n y ’s rep ea ted fail u re to res p o n d to co u rt orders and dir ect i ves, as w el l as her fai l ure t o respon d to di scl osure r equ i rem ents , even a ft ers he w as gi ven extr a t i m e t o do s o. Subse quent l y , on D ece m ber4, 2009, the di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the m agi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on i n ful l , and di s m i s s ed the cons ol i dat ed ac t i ons . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. E xceptfora br i ef pe r i od of t i m e, M s . A nthonyhas pr ocee ded pro se . W e have car eful l yr ead the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on, the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deradopt i ng the r eportand r ecomm endat i on, and numer ous otheror der s ent er ed thr oughoutthe ca s e, as w el l as the compl et e r ecor d. W e ca n a d d n o th in g to th e a n a ly sis c o n tain e d th e re in . W h ile w e a re sy m p a th e tic to M s. A n th o n y ’s p lig h t, w ith a se rio u slyill c h ild , an d th e p ro b lem s s h e p u rp o rts to h av e w ith the U n it ed S tat es m ail serv ice, ne ith er tho se situation s n o r he r pro se s t atus excus e herfr om compl y i ng w i th the mostbas i c and f undament al pr ocedur al ru le s o f o u r c o u rt s .-3-

A cc o rdin g ly , w e A F F IR M the d ism issal of the c o n so li d ated T it le V II act i ons , fors ubs t ant i al l yt he r eas ons s t at ed i n the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or derdat ed De c e mb e r4 , 2 0 0 9 . An yo th e rp e n d i n g mo t i o n s a r e DE NI E D. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge