UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

TRAVIS T. BEDORE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 24-1176

(D.C. No. 1:22-CV-00179-SKC)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Travis T. Bedore filed a pro se complaint against Nationstar Mortgage 

LLC (“Nationstar”) alleging it erroneously failed to cancel the private 

mortgage insurance requirement on his mortgage and provide escrow 

disclosures. He alleged Nationstar violated the Consumer Financial 

Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5531 et seq., the Real Estate Settlement 

* 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 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 Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 7, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-1176 Document: 25 Date Filed: 10/07/2024 Page: 1
2

Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., the Homeowners Protection Act, 

12 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq., and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo. 

Rev. Stat. § 6-1-101 et seq. Bedore further asserted claims for breach of 

contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence under Colorado law. 

Nationstar filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 56, which the district court granted. Because Bedore has 

forfeited any review of the district court’s judgment on appeal, we affirm.

I

“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same standards that the district court should have applied.”

Merrifield v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 654 F.3d 1073, 1077 (10th Cir. 2011)

(quoting Jensen v. Solvay Chems., Inc., 625 F.3d 641, 650 (10th Cir. 2010)). 

“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there 

is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When considering a 

motion for summary judgment, “[w]e examine the record and all reasonable 

inferences that might be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the 

non-moving party.” Merrifield, 654 F.3d at 1077 (quoting Berry & Murphy, 

P.C. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 586 F.3d 803, 808 (10th Cir. 2009)). In this 

Appellate Case: 24-1176 Document: 25 Date Filed: 10/07/2024 Page: 2
3

appeal, however, we affirm summary judgment in favor of Nationstar 

because Bedore has forfeited his right to a review of that decision.

II

Bedore’s opening brief contains no substantive argument as to why 

summary judgment was erroneously granted in favor of Nationstar. Apart 

from referring to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct and other 

unspecified rules, Bedore’s argument consists of the following:

The court’s denial of my motions for intervention and discovery 

hearings, coupled with opposing counsel’s misrepresentation 

and the Appellee’s withholding of documents, have severely 

compromised the fairness and due process rights afforded to me 

in this legal matter.

These actions collectively undermine the integrity of the judicial 

process and obstruct my efforts to seek justice under the law.

Op. Br. at 6. Bedore refers to summary judgment only once by asking this 

court to “[r]everse Judge Crews’ decision and enter summary judgment in 

favor of [him].”1 Id. at 17.

Such conclusory statements are inadequate to preserve issues for 

review. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th 

Cir. 2005). It is well-established that a pro se litigant’s pleadings and other 

1 In his reply brief, Bedore makes several arguments regarding 

summary judgment. But we ordinarily do not review issues raised for the 

first time in a reply brief, Stump v. Gates, 211 F.3d 527, 533 (10th Cir. 

2000), and given the opening brief’s inadequacies, we decline to do so here. 

Appellate Case: 24-1176 Document: 25 Date Filed: 10/07/2024 Page: 3
4

papers are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than 

those drafted by attorneys. United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 949 n.9 (10th 

Cir. 2021). But “[t]his court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties 

‘follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.’” Nielsen v. 

Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting Green v. Dorrell, 969 

F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992)). And indeed, the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure require appellants to provide an argument containing 

“appellant’s contentions and the 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). Rule 28 “applies equally to pro se litigants,” and 

requires “more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to 

supporting authority.” Garrett, 425 F.3d at 841 (quoting Anderson v. 

Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001)).

“[W]hen a pro se litigant fails to comply with [Rule 28], we cannot fill 

the void by crafting arguments and performing the necessary legal 

research.” Id. (quoting Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545). Liberally construing the 

briefs despite a plaintiff’s “failure to cite proper legal authority, his

confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence 

construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements,” does not 

mean we “take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in 

Appellate Case: 24-1176 Document: 25 Date Filed: 10/07/2024 Page: 4
5

constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id. at 840. (quoting Hall 

v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)).

III

Given Bedore’s inadequate arguments on appeal, we decline to 

exercise “any discretion we may have to delve for substance in a pro se 

[filing].” Id. Because Bedore fails to make coherent arguments, we deny his 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.2

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico

Circuit Judge

2 We also deny Bedore’s motion to take judicial notice, as the 

information presented is not appropriate for judicial notice under Federal 

Rule of Evidence 201. See Estate of Lockett ex rel. Lockett v. Fallin, 841 F.3d 

1098, 1111 (10th Cir. 2016) (“Judicial notice is proper when a fact is beyond 

debate, for instance, what time the sun sets on a given day.”).

Appellate Case: 24-1176 Document: 25 Date Filed: 10/07/2024 Page: 5