Case Name: Michael E. McKINZY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-25
Citations: 367 F. App'x 912
Docket Number: No. 09-3280
Parties: Michael E. McKINZY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before HARTZ, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 912–912

Head Matter:
Michael E. McKINZY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-3280.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 25, 2010.
Michael E. McKinzy, Sr., Overland Park, KS, pro se.
James R. Holland, II, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before HARTZ, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
Pro se plaintiff Michael E. McKinzy, Sr., appeals from the district court's order dismissing his discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Interstate Brands Corporation, as a sanction for disobeying the court's discovery orders.
Mr. McKinzy never addresses the district court's order that dismissed his lawsuit as a sanction; instead he complains about its earlier orders denying, without prejudice, his motions to amend his complaint and for summary judgment. However, these orders have no affect on the outcome and we will not consider them on appeal. Orr v. City of Albuquerque, 417 F.3d 1144,1154 (10th Cir.2005).
As to the order of dismissal, Mr. McKin-zy never mentions it in his brief, and perforce, never explains any error. "We routinely have declined to consider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an appellant's opening brief. Stated differently, the omission of an issue in an opening brief generally forfeits appellate consideration of that issue." Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir.2007) (citations omitted).
The appeal is DISMISSED.
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.