UNITED STATES CO URT 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, MacK enzie Place Union, LLC. Specifically, the di strict court granted MacK enzie’s motion for summary judgment as to Mr. Muragara’s hostile-wor k environment and disparate-treatment

* 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 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res j udicata, and collateral es toppel. It may be cited, however, for its persua sive 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- 2 - claims, and it entered judgment against Mr. Muragara on his retaliation claim following a bench trial. Nonetheless, th e district court gran ted Mr. Muragara’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Proceeding pro se, Mr. Muragara now a ppeals. MacKenzie has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that Mr. Muragara ha s failed to argue adequate grounds for reversal. We agree with MacKenzie. Mr. Muragara has not identified what di strict 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 c ontention appears to be that the district court should be “given a second chance to tr ier [sic] this case” so he can “elaborate, clarify, and convince or show th[e] cour troom judge that [he] was mistreated, harassed and bullied by his cowo rkers.” Opening Br. at 3, 4. Further, his briefs

contain references to anot her company’s denial of his worker’s-compensation benefits and to the authoritarian regi me of a former C ongolese president. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Pro cedure 28, the appella nt’s opening brief

must contain a statement of the issues; a concise statemen t 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.”- 3 - Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840, 841 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omit ted). This “court cannot ta ke on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’ s attorney in constructing argumen ts and searching the record.”

Id. at 840. Thus, an appellant who fails to raise arguments or present them adequately in the opening brief on a ppeal 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 co mply 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 revi ew 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