Case Name: Richard Dewray HACKFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of UTAH; Gary Herbert; Sean D. Reyes; Jeannine Strasburg; Brad Draper; Tom Kosmack; Joel D. Berrett; Mike Kendall; Duchesne County; Uintah County; Vernal City; Roosevelt City; Pete Butcher; Joe Moynier; Split Mountain Youth Center; The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints; Ute Indian Tribe, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-31
Citations: 641 F. App'x 772
Docket Number: No. 15-4106
Parties: Richard Dewray HACKFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of UTAH; Gary Herbert; Sean D. Reyes; Jeannine Strasburg; Brad Draper; Tom Kosmack; Joel D. Berrett; Mike Kendall; Duchesne County; Uintah County; Vernal City; Roosevelt City; Pete Butcher; Joe Moynier; Split Mountain Youth Center; The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints; Ute Indian Tribe, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 641
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
Richard Dewray HACKFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of UTAH; Gary Herbert; Sean D. Reyes; Jeannine Strasburg; Brad Draper; Tom Kosmack; Joel D. Berrett; Mike Kendall; Duchesne County; Uintah County; Vernal City; Roosevelt City; Pete Butcher; Joe Moynier; Split Mountain Youth Center; The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints; Ute Indian Tribe, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-4106.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 31, 2015.
Richard Dewray Haekford, Roosevelt, UT, pro se.
Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
BOBBY R. BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.
Richard Dewray Haekford, pro se, appeals the district court's order dismissing his claims. Hackford's brief does not adequately present an argument that the district court erred, so we affirm.
Haekford sued the State of Utah and various others in an effort to compel the United States Secretary of the Interior to revisit certain actions taken under the 1954 Ute Partition and Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. § Qn-Wllm. Upon a magistrate's recommendation to dismiss the action for failing to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the district court issued a detailed order dismissing some of Hackford's claims with prejudice and some without prejudice. The court explained the deficiencies of the claims it dismissed without prejudice and gave Haekford thirty days to amend them. Haekford appealed before the thirty days had passed, but his appeal was quickly dismissed for lack of a final decision. See Hackford v. Utah, No. 15-4090, Order at 2-3 (10th Cir. July 13,2015). When Haekford failed to amend his remaining claims, the district court dismissed them with prejudice. Haekford now appeals that order.
Haekford does not have a lawyer, so we construe his arguments liberally and hold his brief to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir.2005). But we cannot search the record and create arguments for him. Id, Instead, Haekford must follow the same rules of procedure that govern all litigants. See id. And as with any litigant, we will decline to consider arguments Haekford does not adequately present in his brief. See Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir.2007).
Hackford does not advance a reasoned argument in his brief that the district court erred by dismissing his claims. Instead, he simply repeats many of the con-clusory allegations in his amended complaint and asks this court for similar relief. Moreover, Hackford has failed to comply with Rule 28, which applies equally to pro se litigants, because he does not direct us to the relevant parts of the record, cite legal authority, state the applicable standard of review, or explain the basis for this court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a); Garrett, 425 F.3d at 841 (stating "Rule 28 . applies equally to pro se litigants" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In short, Hackford has forfeited any argument that the district court erred by failing to adequately present it in his brief. See Bronson, 500 F.3d at 1105 (appellants forfeited an argument by failing to adequately present it in their opening brief). We therefore affirm the district court's order of dismissal.
After examining the appellant's brief 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 Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
. As the district court correctly noted, Hack-ford failed to name the Secretary of the Interior as a defendant.