A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi 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 tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See 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. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe 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, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 15,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT ALLEN RU SS ELL, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. S HERM AN A ND H OW ARD, LL C; J AC K SI LVER ; KEN NETH SI EGEL; T A M IR G O L D S T IE N ; M A R T IN E G G L E H O FF, D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge; W A Y N E V A D EN ; A N I TA D U M A S; STATE OF CO LOR AD O; DEN VER SHERI FF ’ S DEPARTM ENT, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1056 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - C V - 0 0 4 4 6 - R E B - MJ W)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , BA LD OCK , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es. A l l en R us s el l has been i nvol ved i n num er ous s t at e and feder al l egal act i ons ar i s i ng outof the for ecl os ur e of c ert ai n r eal pr opertyi n D enver , C ol or ado. I n theSee D . C . C our tof Appeals v. Feldm an , 4 6 0 U .S . 4 6 2 (1 9 8 3 ); R ookerv. F i d. 1 Trus tC o. , 2 6 3 U . S . 4 1 3 (19 2 3 ). -2- cas e under l y i ng thi s appea l , the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on underthe R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne. M r . R us s el l , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed an ope ni ng br i ef 1 n ea rl ythirtyp ag es lo n g . W h il e tha t bri ef rec o u n ts m an yo f M r. R u ssell’ s d iss a tisfa c tio n s w ith th e C o lo ra d o sta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s a n d re fe rs to ru lin g s in a s epar at e fe der al courtact i on, i tbar el ym ent i ons the ca s e under l y i ng thi s appea l a n d c o n ta in s n o a rg u m e n t w h yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n s h o u ld b e re v e rs e d . C o n se q u e n tly , w e a ffirm th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l. A l though w e cons true pr o s e fi l i ngs l i ber al l y , M r . R us s el l ’ s pr o s e s t atus does notexcus e hi m fr om “compl y [i ng] w i th the funda m ent al r equi r ement s of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l and A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e. ” O g d e n v . Sa n Ju a n C o u n ty , 32 F. 3d 452, 455 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . A m ong thes e r equi r ement s i s a di r ect i ve for th e a p p e llan t to se t fo rth h is o r h e r a rg u m e n ts in th e o p e n in g b rie f, w ith s u p p o rt in g a u th o ri ty an d c ita tio n s to th e re c o rd . F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 8 (a )( 9 )( A ).

“ U n d e r R u le 2 8 , w h ich a p p lies e q u a llyto p ro se lit ig a n ts, a b rie f m u st c o n tain m o re th a n a g e n e ra liz e d a s s e rt io n o f e rr o r, w ith c ita tio n s to s u p p o rt in g a u th o ri ty. W hen a pr o s e l i t i gantfai l s t o compl yw i th thatrul e, w e ca nnotfi l l the voi d by cr aft i ng ar gum ent s and per form i ng the nec es s aryl egal r es ear ch. ” G ar r et tv. Selby C onnorMaddux & Janer , 425 F. 3d 836, 841 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( al t er at i on, ci t at i on, a n d q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); see also D rake v. C i t y of Fo rtC oll i ns, 927 F. 2d 1156,W hi l e M r . R us s el l ’ s r epl ybr i ef doe s m ent i on the or derunder l y i ng the 2 appea l , “[t ] hi s courtdoes notor di nar i l yr evi ew i s s ues r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e i n a r epl ybr i ef. ” St ump v. G at es , 2 1 1 F .3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). -3- 1159 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( s t at i ng thatthi s “courtw i l l notcons tructar gum ent s or theo ri es fo r th e p lai n ti ff in the ab sen ce o f a n yd iscu ssion o f th o se issu es” ). In s hor t , “[a ] r gum ent s i nadequa t el ybr i efe d i n the openi ng br i ef a r e w ai ved. ” A dl er v. Wal - Mar tSt or es , Inc. , 1 4 4 F . 3 d 6 6 4 , 6 7 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). M r. R u ssell’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e anyar gum ent s i n hi s openi ng br i ef r egar di ng the under l y i ng d istric t co u rt d e c isio n n e c e ss a rilyre su lts in a w a iv e r o n a p p e a l. 2 M r . R us s el l ’ s m ot i ons t o pr ocee d on appea l w i thoutpr epay i ng cos t s and fe es, fo r ap p o intm en t of co u n sel, an d to fil e a su p p lem en tal rep lyb ri ef are D E N IE D . A p p e llee s’ m o tio n to d ism iss th e a p p e a l fo r M r. R u ss e ll’s fa ilu re to compl yw i th Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 28 i s D E N I E D . T he j udgm ent o f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

B obbyR . B al dock C i r cui tJ udge