Case Name: William P. ZANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC.; Glen Palmer, Jason Jones, Shawn Bell, Kevin Prewitt, Michael Hitchcock, David Shobe, individually and as employees of Knight Transportation, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-18
Citations: 688 F. App'x 532
Docket Number: No. 16-3018
Parties: William P. ZANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC.; Glen Palmer, Jason Jones, Shawn Bell, Kevin Prewitt, Michael Hitchcock, David Shobe, individually and as employees of Knight Transportation, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MATHESON, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 532–542

Head Matter:
William P. ZANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC.; Glen Palmer, Jason Jones, Shawn Bell, Kevin Prewitt, Michael Hitchcock, David Shobe, individually and as employees of Knight Transportation, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-3018
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
FILED April 18, 2017
William P. Zander, Pro se.
James C. Sullivan, Brian J. Zickefoose, Polsinelli, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before MATHESON, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Terrence L. O'Brien Circuit Judge
William P. Zander has filed this frivolous pro se appeal challenging the district court's dismissal of his employment action and imposition of $1,000.00 in attorney's fees as a sanction for his noncompliance with discovery orders. The original discovery deadline was November 22, 2013, but via misconduct and dilatory tactics, Mr. Zander delayed the date of his deposition until May 27, 2015. On that date, he still failed to appear, despite multiple judicial directives to submit to a deposition, a previous sanction of $500.00, and repeated warnings that noncompliance with discovery could result in dismissal. Consequently, a magistrate judge issued a report evaluating the Ehrenhaus factors and recommending the case be dismissed with prejudice and attorney's fees of $1,000.00 be imposed for Mr. Zander's noncompliance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), (d)(3). On de novo review, the district court entered an order adopting the recommendation in its entirety.
Mr. Zander has now filed an incomprehensible brief on appeal, which is attached to this order and judgment. He indicates "the courts rigged everything," and his "printer broke so [he] know[s] the corruption of the court." Aplt. Br. at 1. He also says someone perpetrated a fraud on the court, and he concludes with vague political and race-based remarks. We afford these pro se comments a liberal construction, but Mr. Zander has forfeited appellate review by failing to articulate any coherent argument supported by adequate legal authority. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840-41 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) ("[W]e routinely have declined to consider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an appellant's opening brief."). Therefore, the district court's judgment is affirmed.
Attachment
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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
. See Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992).