UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

PAUL HOWARD TILLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JACK CHOATE, Sheriff; DERRELL SUMMERS, Undersheriff; OKFUSKEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; CREOKS MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; WANDA MANOS; NORTHVIEW APARTMENTS; TRAVELENE FISH; THOMAS DODDS, Defendants-Appellees. No. 12-7016 (D.C. No. 6:10-CV-00429-FHS) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before LUCERO , TYMKOVICH , and HOLMES , Circuit Judges.

Paul Howard Tilley, proceeding pro se, a ppeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights and state-law tort claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mate rially assist the de termination 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### November 20, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and also a ppeals the district court’s s ubsequent dismissal of the action as a sanction for disc overy abuse under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (b)(2)(A)(v). Exercising our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I. Background Filing pro se, Tilley initiated this acti on in Oklahoma in November 2010. He was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and permitted to amend his complaint after th e district court determined that his complaint failed to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction. Tilley subsequently filed an amended complaint and a second amended complaint. As best we can construe his initial and amended pleadings, Tilley’s civil right s action derives from an alleged altercation that occurred when he went to the Okfuskee Co unty Sheriff’s Department in Oklahoma to file a complaint concerning the inadequate investigation into the death of a friend. As we understand the nature of th e complaint, during the encounter Undersheriff Derrell Summers became upset with Tilley and beat his forehead against Tilley’s cap, attempti ng to provoke a fight. Tille y was thereafter physically assaulted and placed in handcuffs by Summer s and Sheriff Jack Choate. Meanwhile, he called out to others at the sheriff’s de partment to contact hi s apartment manager, Travelene Fish, and advise her of the situ ation. He was take n to Creoks Mental Health Services (Creoks) where he wa s briefly evaluated by Wanda Manos and diagnosed with schizophrenia and paranoia. Tilley refused me dical treatment and was released from custody.- 3 - In his second amended complaint, Till ey asserted a clai m of assault and battery, against Summers, and cl aims of use of excessive fo rce, false arrest, and false imprisonment against both Choate and Summ ers. He also as serted claims of defamation of character, intentional inflic tion of emotional distress, and conspiracy against Choate, Summers, Manos, and Fish, whom he claimed conspired to have him diagnosed with a mental hea lth condition. Additionally, he alleged that Thomas Dodds, whom Tilley had hired to prepare his first amended complaint, conspired with his co-defendants to draft th e complaint so poor ly that the cause of action would be dismissed. And he allege d that defendants Okfuskee Co unty Sheriff’s Department, Creoks, and Northview Apartm ents should be held accountable for the actions of their employees. In February 2011, pursuant to § 1915(e )(2)(B)(ii), the district court dismissed Tilley’s claims of defamation, intentiona l infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy for failure to st ate a claim upon which relief can be granted, thereby dismissing defendants Manos, Fish, Dodds , Creoks, Okfuskee County Sheriff’s Department, and Northview Apartments. Bu t it found that Tilley’s allegations of assault and battery, excessive use of force, false arre st, and false imprisonment against Choate and Summers were sufficient. Till ey attempted to a ppeal the district court’s partial dismissal of his claims to th is Court, but we dismissed the appeal in May 2011 for lack of a ppellate jurisdiction.- 4 - The litigation proceeded against Choate and Summers but was thwarted by discovery issues. Tilley responded to de fendants’ discovery requests, but certain responses were allegedly defi cient. Among those deficien cies, Tilley refused to sign releases for medical records unless ordered to do so by the district court. And he indicated in his responses that there was an alleged recording of the incident but did not produce any such recording. After defendants’ efforts to obtain revised and supplemented responses from Tilley failed, defendants s ought the district court’s intervention in November 2011 by filing a mo tion to compel discovery. In a minute order, the district court gr anted defendants’ motion to compel, advising Tilley that failure to comply with the court’s orde r could result in sanctions, including the dismissal of the case. Tille y, however, did not comply. On defendants’ motion to dismiss Tilley’s remaining claims for failure to comply with the district cour t’s discovery order, and afte r a hearing on the matter, the district court dismissed the action in February 2012.
II. Discussion Tilley appears to raise two issues on a ppeal: 1) Choate and Summers are not entitled to immunity for clai ms of assault and battery, us e of excessive force, false arrest, and false imprisonm ent; and 2) defendants Ok fuskee County Sheriff’s- 5 - Department, Creoks, Manos, Fish, Dodds, and Northview Apartments should be “reinstated.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 3. 1 As to the first issue, in his opening brief to this cour t, Tilley argues the merits of his claims against defe ndants Choate and Summers, pr oviding factual allegations in support of his claims and some citation to case law. But nowh ere in his brief does he address the fundamental issu e leading to the dismissal of these claims: the failure to comply with the district court’s discove ry order and the court’s resulting sanction of dismissal. Although we ar e mindful that because Tille y is proceeding pro se we must view his pleadings liber ally, we will not serve as his advocate in constructing arguments on his behalf or in searching the record. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Defendants contend that Tilley has wa ived all issues on appeal due to inadequate briefing. We agree. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), a district court may issue an order dismissing the action if a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery. “Determination of the co rrect sanction for a di scovery violation is a fact-specific inquiry that the district court is best qualifie d to make,” and, therefore, we review the district court’s decision to dismiss the action for a buse of discretion.

1 Based on our review of the record , defendants-appellees Okfuskee County Sheriff’s Department, Creoks , Manos, Fish, Dodds, and Northview Apartments were not served a summons in the district cour t action, given the di strict court’s order dismissing them and directing service onl y upon defendants-appe llees Choate and Summers. On appeal, only Ch oate and Summers have ente red their appearances and filed a response brief.- 6 - Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds , 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the appropriate issue on appeal is whether the district court’s choi ce of dismissal as a sanction was a permissible exer cise of its discretion. Bu t Tilley’s brief wholly fails to address this issue and th erefore he has waived it. United States v. Almaraz , 306 F.3d 1031, 1041 (10th Ci r. 2002) (“[A]rguments not briefed on appeal are waived.”). We note, however, that dismissal of an action for discovery violations is permissible and has been affirmed where, as here, a party w ithholds evidence. See Archibeque v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co ., 70 F.3d 1172, 1174-75 (10th Cir. 1995) (withholding of medical information in action for personal injuries was sufficient to justify sanction of dismissal); see also Ehrenhaus , 965 F.2d at 921-22 (sanction of dismissa l upheld where part y disobeyed court order to appear at scheduled deposition). As to his argument concerning the merits of his claims against Choate and Summers, Tilley’s brief is inad equate to raise any issue fo r appellate review. He has not claimed any error by the district court or provide d any argument. See Utahns for Better Transp. v. U. S. Dep’t of Transp ., 305 F.3d 1152, 1175 (10th Cir. 2002) (“[I]ssues will be deemed waived if they are not adequately briefed.”), modified on rehr’g , 319 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2003); Garrett , 425 F.3d at 841 (noting that “conclusory allegations with no citations to the record or any legal authority for support” will result in a waiver on appeal); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28.- 7 - Turning to the second issu e on appeal, to the extent that Tilley appeals the district court’s order di smissing his claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspir acy, as with the first issue, Tilley does not address any error by the district court in dismissing th e claims under § 1915(e )(2)(B)(ii). Instead, in his argument to “reinstate” defenda nts Okfuskee County Sheriff’s Department, Creoks, and Northview Apartments, he claims , with some citation to case law, that they are municipalities respons ible for the actions of thei r employees and not entitled to absolute immunity. In support of his argument to reinstate Choate, Summers, Manos, Fish, and Dodds, he asserts factua l allegations in support of both of his conspiracy claims agains t these defendants. But again, he does not explain how or why the district court erred in dismissing the claims, or support any argumen t with citation to the record or case law. We conclude Tilley has waived any argument on appeal. See Utahns for Better Transp. , 305 F.3d at 1175; Garrett , 425 F.3d at 841.
III. Conclusion The judgment of the dist rict court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich Circuit Judge