UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ WILLIAM CONRAD YEAGER, II, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO; ANDREW FLANAGAN; JACOB GANZ; ASHLEY MESSENGER, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-3252 (D.C. No. 5:18-CV -04019-SAC-GEB) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , PHILLIPS , and CARSON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ William Conrad Yeager, II, appeals pro se from a district cour t order that dismissed his defamation lawsuit against National Public Radio (“NPR”), NPR journalist Andrew Flanagan, NPR reporter Jac ob Ganz, and NPR attorney Ashl ey Messenger. Exercising appellate jurisdicti on under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we af firm.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel ha s determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in t he determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is t herefore ordered submitted without oral ar gument. This order and judgme nt is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res j udicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, howev er, for its persuasive value c onsistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 22, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 I. 

### BACKGROUND According to the complaint, Mr. Y eager is “an artist, musician , filmmaker, performance artist, activist a nd humanitarian” who resides in K ansas. R., Vol. I at 11. On March 23, 2017, NPR published an article on its website writ ten by Mr. Flanagan titled, “The Most Expensive Reco rd Never Sold, Discogs, Billy Y eager and the $18,000 Hoax that Almost Was.” Id. at 74. The article said Mr . Yeager had a p enchant for dubious promotional activities, s uch as pretending to be the so n of Jimmy Hendrix and attempting to sell his own album to himself on an internet auct ion site for $18,000. The article described him as “a tric kster-booster” and said “the st ory of Billy Yeager is one of purposeless obfuscati on,” R., Vol. I at 15. Id. at 32, 123. The following day, NPR broadcas t an interview between Mr. Flan agan and Mr. Ganz on its “All Things Consid ered” program. Mr. Ganz referred to Mr. Yeager as a “huckster” and a “charlatan,” id ., and said Mr. Yeager was “ far more interested in infamy . . . and the chas e of pulling the wool over people’s ey es” than he was in attaining real fame, id. at 19. The complaint alleged these a nd other false statements “oblite rated [his] 40 year career overnight.” Id. at 17. He contacted attorney Me ssenger and requested that NPR remove the article and the inte rview from its website. She ref used, but offered Mr. Yeager the opportunity to respo nd in an NPR forum. He declined

.3 In March 2018, Mr. Yeager filed a 93-page, pro se complaint ag ainst NPR, Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Ganz, and Ms. Me ssenger. He pled multiple claims of defamation. 1 The complaint alleged that Mr. Flanaga n’s “[a]rticle was nothing mo re than a bumptious labyrinth of malicious statements and innuendos,” id. at 22, and that the “All Things Considered” interview “was not hing more than an acrimonious pra ttling, slandering Plaintiff, with an apparent agenda,” id. at 18. He complained that Ms. Messenger “willingly allowed The Article to remain online” and was liable “as a cohort.” Id. at 42, 46. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district court concluded th e complaint failed to state a c laim for relief. It found Mr. Yeager was a limited pur pose public figure and theref ore was required to allege that NPR published the statements about him with actual malice. See World Wide Ass’n of Specialty Programs v. Pure, Inc. , 450 F.3d 1132, 1136 (10th Cir. 2006); see also New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964) (d efining actual malice as publishing “with knowledge that [statement] was false or with r eckless disregard of whether it was false of not”); Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts , 388 U.S. 130, 155 (1967) (extending actual malice require ment to public figure libel pla intiffs); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 418 U.S. 323, 351 (1 974) (defining limited purpose public fig ure). The court said he did not do so. It also de termined that the statements were not actionable because they were (a) based o n the speaker’s subject ive opinion, (b) no t defamatory, or (c) so

1 The district court construed th e allegations as also pleading a claim for falselight invasion of privacy.4 vague as to be subject to multiple interpretations. 2 Accordingly, the district court gave Mr. Yeager the opportunity to f ile an amended complaint. Mr. Yeager responded by submitting a 220-page pro posed amended complaint, which added a claim designated as “Tort of Outrage” based on NP R’s “wrongful actions.” Id. at 599. The district court no ted that it was “similar to [the ] original complaint and read[ ] something like a motion for reconsiderati on,” id. at 690. The court concluded its prior analysis o f Mr. Yeager’s claims applied to the proposed amended complaint. As to the tort of o utrage, the court concluded the amended complaint did not allege extreme and outrageous c onduct. Accordingly, the court denied leave to amend on the basis of futility and granted t he defendants’ motion to dis miss.
II. DISCUSSION “[W]e exercise de novo review w hen a court denies a request to amend on the ground that amendment would be fu tile” and dismisses the compla int for failure to state a claim. Nakkhumpun v. Taylor , 782 F.3d 1142, 1146 (10t h Cir. 2015). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint m ust contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Mr. Yeager’s appellate briefs, e ven liberally construed, do no t satisfy Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28, which requires “a succinct, clear an d accurate statement of the

2 The district court also conclude d that Ms. Messenger was entit led to dismissal on the additional gr ound that liability does not atta ch for refusing to retract a defamatory statement.5 arguments made in the body of t he brief[ ] and . . . appellant’ s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations t o the authorities and parts o f the record on which the appellant relies.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840-41 (10th Cir. 2005) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). The brief s offer little more than generalized assertions of error, t ogether with attacks on the a ppellees and their counsel. Briefing of this nature can “ disentitle [a pro se litigant] to review by this court.” Id. at 841. Although Mr. Yeager may h ave preserved his argument as to whet her he is a limited public figure a nd whether Mr. Flanaga n made the “purpos eless obfuscation” statement with actual malice, he does not address the court’s a lternative grounds for dismissal of the defamation claims. See also Aplt. Opening Br. at 5. “[W]here a district court’s disposition rests on alte rnative and adequate grounds, a party who, in challenging that disposition, only argues th at one alternative is erroneous necessarily loses because the second alternative stands as an independent and adequate ba sis, regardless of the correctness of the first alternative.” Shook v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs , 543 F.3d 597, 613 n.7 (10th Cir. 2008). Although Mr. Yeager mentions the d istrict court’s alternative grounds to dismiss regarding the “purposeful obfus cation” statement, he presents n o argument against those rulings. We “will not consider issu es adverted to in a perfunc tory manner, unaccompanied by some effort a t developed argumentation.” Armstrong v. Arcanum Grp., Inc. , 897 F.3d 1283, 1291 (10th Ci r. 2018) (ellipsis and internal q uotation marks omitted). Thus, Mr. Yeager can not succeed on appeal.6 III. CONCLUSION We affirm the district court’s judgment.

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge