Case Name: Michael JIRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond VALDEZ; Eric Schwieson; Maria Zerbie, and her clients; Judge Goldberger; Conejos County, on behalf of Judge Swift; Hufferno County, Welsenberger, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-03
Citations: 553 F. App'x 849
Docket Number: No. 13-1460
Parties: Michael JIRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond VALDEZ; Eric Schwieson; Maria Zerbie, and her clients; Judge Goldberger; Conejos County, on behalf of Judge Swift; Hufferno County, Welsenberger, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 849–850

Head Matter:
Michael JIRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond VALDEZ; Eric Schwieson; Maria Zerbie, and her clients; Judge Goldberger; Conejos County, on behalf of Judge Swift; Hufferno County, Welsenberger, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-1460.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 3, 2014.
Michael Jirón, Conejos, CO, pro se.
Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
GREGORY A. PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
The district court dismissed Michael Jir-on's suit because his complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm the district court's judgment because Jirón has forfeited his right to have that judgment reviewed. Even though Jirón is pro se, his appellate brief contains no argument that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840-41 (10th Cir.2005) (affirming dismissal order where a pro se plaintiff made no argument of substance in his briefs).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment, we deny Jiron's other motions as moot, and we deny Jiron's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We remind him that he must pay the filing and docket fees in full to the clerk of the district court.
After examining the briefs and the 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). This 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.