UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ DJUAN PRESTON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. SKF USA, INC.; LOCAL 1546 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERSINTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIOCLC, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-6026 (D.C. No. 5:16- CV-00112-F) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before BACHARACH , PHILLIPS , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Djuan Preston Williams, proceedi ng pro se, appeals the final ju dgment entered after a jury reached a verdict a gainst him on his hostile-work- environment claim against his former employer, SKF USA, Inc. (SKF). We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel ha s determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in t he determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is t herefore ordered submitted without oral ar gument. This order and judgme nt is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res j udicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, howev er, for its persuasive value c onsistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 1, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 I. Background Mr. Williams, who is black, expe rienced the following incident s while employed at SKF. On two occasions he heard racial epithets use d by his coworkers, one of which was directed at hi m. On another occasion he disco vered a sticker with a racial epithet on his car shor tly after returning home from wor k. Another time he saw a racial epithet scrawled on a bathroom stall at work. He reported each incident to SKF. Unsatisfied with its res ponses, he brou ght this lawsui t, seeking to hold SKF liable for the racially hostile w ork environment he endured bef ore he stopped showing up for work and was terminated. Mr. Williams’s hostile-work-envi ronment claim was tried to a j ury, which returned a verdict in favor of SK F. The district court allowed SKF to introduce evidence of Mr. Williams’s post- employment arrest, detention, a nd conviction of a felony to rebut his demand for emotional distress damages. Mr. Williams moved for a new tr ial on the grounds that (1) the verdict was against the weight of the eviden ce, (2) evidence about his felo ny conviction should not have been admitted, and (3) SKF’s counsel made racially ins ensitive remarks during Mr. Williams’s cross-examin ation and unjustifiably inter rupted his counsel’s closing statement. The district court denied the m otion, and this appeal followed

. 1 Mr. Williams’s opening brief seem s to reiterate the arguments h e made in his motion

1 The district court granted Mr . Williams’s moti on to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.3 for a new trial. 2 His cause is hindered substan tially by the lack of a trial tr anscript. In its answer, SKF urges that we dismiss the appeal due to Mr. Williams’s failure to obtain a transcript. The deadlin e for filing a reply brief has passed, and Mr. Williams has neither filed a reply brief nor ordered a transcript. We d iscern no basis for reversing the distri ct court’s judgment. II. Analysis Mr. Williams argues that the jur y’s verdict is against the wei ght of the evidence and that a w itness for SKF committ ed perjury, but he p oints to no specific evidence to support these argumen ts. “Arguments inadequately b riefed in the opening brief are waived . . . .” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998). And without a t rial transcript, we cannot re view the evidence before the trial cour t and must affirm. See Scott v. Hern , 216 F.3d 897, 912 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Whe re the record is insu fficient to permit r eview we must affirm.”). Mr. Williams also argues that t he trial court abused its discr etion by allowing the jury to hear about his felony conviction. But he fails to support his argument with any relevant legal authority and has therefore forfeited i t. See Phillips v.
Calhoun , 956 F.2d 949, 953-54 (10th Cir. 1992) (“A litigant who fails to press

2 Because Mr. Williams is proceed ing pro se, we liberally constr ue his pleadings, but we will not serve as his advocate by constructin g arguments on his behalf or by searching the record. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).4 appoint by supporting it with p ertinent author ity . . . forfeit s the point.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Mr. Williams asserts that SKF’s counsel committed misconduct wi thout identifying any statements or co nduct in support of this assert ion. “When the party asserting an issue fails to provi de a record sufficient for con sidering that issue, the court may decline to consider i t.” 10th Cir. R. 10.3(B). Nor does Mr. Williams support his contenti on that the all-white j ury made up its mind before deliberating. See Wilburn v. Mid-South Health Dev., Inc. , 343 F.3d 1274, 1281 (10th Cir. 2003) (“We . . . will not consider issu es that are raised on appeal b ut not adequately addressed.”).
III. Conclusion We affirm the district court’s judgment. The district court g ranted Mr. Williams’s motion to proceed w ithout prepayment of costs or fees, and we remind him that he remains oblig ated to pay the filing fee in f ull. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge