UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

JECKONIAS N. MURAGARA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

MACKENZIE PLACE UNION, LLC., 

d/b/a The Mackenzie Place-Colorado 

Springs, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 14-1263 

(D.C. No. 1:12-CV-00891-MSK-BNB) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER*

 

Before MORITZ, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

 

 In this employment discrimination case, the district court resolved Jeckonias 

N. Muragara’s claims in favor of his former employer, MacKenzie Place Union, 

LLC. Specifically, the district court granted MacKenzie’s motion for summary 

judgment as to Mr. Muragara’s hostile-work environment and disparate-treatment 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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 This order is not binding precedent, except 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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 

10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-1263 Document: 01019392930 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

claims, and it entered judgment against Mr. Muragara on his retaliation claim 

following a bench trial. Nonetheless, the district court granted Mr. Muragara’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 Proceeding pro se, Mr. Muragara now appeals. MacKenzie has filed a motion 

to dismiss the appeal on the basis that Mr. Muragara has failed to argue adequate 

grounds for reversal. We agree with MacKenzie. 

 Mr. Muragara has not identified what district court rulings he is challenging on 

appeal and he fails to include any citations to the district court record. His opening 

and reply briefs contain next to no discussion of the circumstances of his case and no 

pertinent legal arguments. Indeed, his only contention appears to be that the district 

court should be “given a second chance to trier [sic] this case” so he can “elaborate, 

clarify, and convince or show th[e] courtroom judge that [he] was mistreated, 

harassed and bullied by his coworkers.” Opening Br. at 3, 4. Further, his briefs 

contain references to another company’s denial of his worker’s-compensation 

benefits and to the authoritarian regime of a former Congolese president. 

 Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28, the appellant’s opening brief 

must contain a statement of the issues; a concise statement of the case; a summary of 

the arguments; and the actual arguments, including “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). Although we construe a pro se litigant’s 

filings liberally, the requirements of Rule 28(a) “appl[y] equally to pro se litigants.” 

Appellate Case: 14-1263 Document: 01019392930 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840, 841 (10th Cir. 2005) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). This “court cannot take on the responsibility of 

serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” 

Id. at 840. Thus, an appellant who fails to raise arguments or present them 

adequately in the opening brief on appeal forfeits appellate review. See Bronson v. 

Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104-05 (10th Cir. 2007). Further, an appeal lacking an 

arguable basis in either law or fact is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 2002). 

 Because Mr. Muragara has failed to comply with Rule 28 and he has offered 

no specific, relevant argument explaining why the district court’s rulings are 

erroneous, we conclude that he has forfeited appellate review and that the appeal is 

frivolous. 

 Accordingly, we grant MacKenzie’s motion and dismiss this appeal. 

 Entered for the Court 

 John C. Porfilio 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-1263 Document: 01019392930 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 3