UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

DJUAN PRESTON WILLIAMS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

SKF USA, INC.; LOCAL 1546 UNITED 

FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS 

INTERNATIONAL 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, proceeding pro se, appeals the final judgment entered 

after a jury reached a verdict against 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 has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 

August 1, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

I. Background 

 Mr. Williams, who is black, experienced the following incidents while 

employed at SKF. On two occasions he heard racial epithets used by his coworkers, 

one of which was directed at him. On another occasion he discovered a sticker with a 

racial epithet on his car shortly after returning home from work. Another time he 

saw a racial epithet scrawled on a bathroom stall at work. He reported each incident 

to SKF. Unsatisfied with its responses, he brought this lawsuit, seeking to hold SKF 

liable for the racially hostile work environment he endured before he stopped 

showing up for work and was terminated. 

 Mr. Williams’s hostile-work-environment claim was tried to a jury, which 

returned a verdict in favor of SKF. The district court allowed SKF to introduce 

evidence of Mr. Williams’s post-employment arrest, detention, and conviction of a 

felony to rebut his demand for emotional distress damages. 

 Mr. Williams moved for a new trial on the grounds that (1) the verdict was 

against the weight of the evidence, (2) evidence about his felony conviction should 

not have been admitted, and (3) SKF’s counsel made racially insensitive remarks 

during Mr. Williams’s cross-examination and unjustifiably interrupted his counsel’s 

closing statement. 

 The district court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.

1

 

Mr. Williams’s opening brief seems to reiterate the arguments he made in his motion 

 1

 The district court granted Mr. Williams’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal. 
3 

for a new trial.2

 His cause is hindered substantially by the lack of a trial transcript. 

In its answer, SKF urges that we dismiss the appeal due to Mr. Williams’s failure to 

obtain a transcript. The deadline for filing a reply brief has passed, and Mr. Williams 

has neither filed a reply brief nor ordered a transcript. We discern no basis for 

reversing the district court’s judgment. 

II. Analysis 

 Mr. Williams argues that the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence and that a witness for SKF committed perjury, but he points to no specific 

evidence to support these arguments. “Arguments inadequately briefed in the 

opening brief are waived . . . .” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 

(10th Cir. 1998). And without a trial transcript, we cannot review the evidence 

before the trial court and must affirm. See Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 912 

(10th Cir. 2000) (“Where the record is insufficient to permit review we must 

affirm.”). 

 Mr. Williams also argues that the trial court abused its discretion 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 it. See Phillips v. 

Calhoun, 956 F.2d 949, 953-54 (10th Cir. 1992) (“A litigant who fails to press 

 2

 Because Mr. Williams is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe his 

pleadings, but we will not serve as his advocate by constructing 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 pertinent authority . . . forfeits the point.” (brackets and 

internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Mr. Williams asserts that SKF’s counsel committed misconduct without 

identifying any statements or conduct in support of this assertion. “When the party 

asserting an issue fails to provide a record sufficient for considering that issue, the 

court may decline to consider it.” 10th Cir. R. 10.3(B). Nor does Mr. Williams 

support his contention that the all-white jury 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 issues that are raised on appeal but not adequately 

addressed.”). 

III. Conclusion 

 We affirm the district court’s judgment. The district court granted 

Mr. Williams’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees, and we 

remind him that he remains obligated to pay the filing fee in full. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1). 

Entered for the Court 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge