UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ DEAN H. CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. DON ROGER NORMAN; ROGER WILLIAM NORMAN; CINDY GAGLIANO; HARVEY COHEN, Defendants - Appellees. No. 19-4044 (D.C. No. 2:17-CV-01283-RJS) (D. Utah)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , HOLMES , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Dean H. Christensen, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action without prejudice based on a cont ractual forum-selection clause. Exercising jurisdiction un der 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. The parties are familiar w ith the facts, and our dis position of this appeal does not require us to set them out in detail. Mr. Christensen asserted claims for breach of

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This or der and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of la w of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 

### November 14, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 contract and fraud, al leging that Pacific Energy Mining Company (Pacific), as his agent, entered into an Asse t Purchase Agreement (APA) with Fidelity Exploration & Production Company (Fidelity). Mr. Christensen alleged that he was a third-party beneficiary of the APA. Under the APA, Pacific was to purch ase an oil-and-gas property in Utah from Fidelity, and Mr. Christ ensen was to receive five percent of the working interest in the property. Pr ior to Pacific comp leting the purchase, Mr. Christensen made an oral agreement with defendants th at Pacific would transfer its rights under the APA to defendants’ company, Norman Oil & Gas, LLC (Norman), Norman would finance the purch ase and receive 70% of revenue (with Pacific receiving the other 30%), and Mr. Ch ristensen would receive five percent of the working interest in the property af ter Norman completed the purchase. Defendants then allegedly failed to fund th e purchase, prevented Mr. Christensen and Pacific from completing the purchase by in forming Fidelity that Pacific no longer had any rights in the APA, negotiated w ith Fidelity to purchase the property, and tried to flip the property without in forming Mr. Christensen or Pacific. Relevant to this appeal, defendants fi led motions to dismis s or transfer for improper venue based on a forum-selection cl ause in the APA. The forum-selection clause provides that the exclusive venue for any litigation related to the APA is Houston, Harris County, Texas: All proceedings with respect to, arising directly or indirectly in connection with, out of, related to or from [t he APA] or the other transaction documents shall be exclusively litigated in courts having s ites in Houston, Harris County, Texas, a nd each party waived any objection it may have to venue or jurisdiction therein.3 R. at 112 (boldface and most capitali zation omitted). A magistrate judge recommended that the motions be granted because the action arose out of the APA and transactions related to it, the fo rum-selection clause was mandatory and enforcing it would not be unreasonable or un just, and Mr. Christensen, although not a signatory to the APA, was bound by the foru m-selection clause because he claimed he was a third-party benefici ary of the APA. Over Mr. Christensen’s objections, the district court adopted the recommenda tion and dismissed the action without prejudice. 1 Mr. Christensen appeals that ruling, but we agree with defendants that his appellate brief is wholly inadequa te to merit substantive review. 2 Although we afford a liberal construction to a pr o se litigant’s filings and hol d them to less stringent standards than filings attorney s draft, we have “repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (i nternal quotation marks omitted). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a) lists the requirements for an appellant’s brief. One of those requirements is that an “appellant’s brief must contain . . . the argument, which must cont ain . . . appellant’s contentions and the

1 In responding to Mr. Christensen’ s objections to the recommendation, defendants informed the district court that Mr. Christensen fa iled to disclose “that he is an officer and director of Pacific,” and argued that this action was merely “an attempted ‘end-run’ around [a] final, non-appealable decision” by a Texas state appeals court, R. at 879 n.1, which was in favor of Norman a nd Fidelity and against Pacific concerning the APA.

2 Mr. Christensen did not file an appellate reply brief.4 reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8 )(A). Consistent with Rule 28(a)(8)(A)’s requirements, which apply “equally to pro se litigants,” “[i]ssu es will be deemed waived if they are not adequately briefed.” Garrett , 425 F.3d at 841 (internal quotation marks omitted). “When a pr o se litigant fails to comply with [Rule 28(a)(8)(A)], we cannot fill the void by crafting arguments and performing the necessary legal research.” Id. (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). In his brief, Mr. Christensen raises three issues, but he provides no legal authority to support his conclusory assert ions of error and no record citations. Regarding the dismissal order, he simply argues that th e district court erred in concluding that this action ar ose out of the APA, and in stead the court should have considered that the allegedl y fraudulent verbal agreement for Norman to purchase the property and give him a percen tage of the working intere st predated the assignment of the APA. But he offers no supporting legal analysis or le gal authority, and “we cannot fill the void by . . . perfor ming the necessary legal research,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefor e decline to consider this issue. Id. Mr. Christensen fares no better on his othe r two issues. The first concerns the district court’s determina tion that his proposed ame nded complaints would not survive a motion to dismiss for improper venue . He asserts the district court erred by not allowing him to amend his complaint, but he provides no discussion or legal analysis of how his proposed amended complaints would have surmounted the forum-selection clause, and “we cannot f ill the void by crafting arguments and5 performing the necessary legal research,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore decline to c onsider this issue. Id. The other issue involves the district c ourt’s failure to rule on his motion to disqualify defendants’ counsel , Harvey Cohen, who is al so one of the defendants. 3 Mr. Christensen contends only that the dist rict court erred in not ruling on the motion to disqualify because Mr. Cohen had “a clear conflict of interest as he was to be called as a witness” in this ca se. Aplt. Br. at 3. But Mr. Christensen fails to flesh out this argument or provide any supporting le gal authority. We th erefore decline to consider this issue. See Garrett , 425 F.3d at 841

. The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

Entered for the Court

Jerome A. Holmes Circuit Judge

3 The district court did not expressly a ddress this motion, but in its dismissal order, the court left the determination of all remain ing pending motions for the chosen forum to make if Mr. Christense n refiled his action in the proper forum.