Opinion ID: 4538125
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Mr. Barnes has not shown the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint. His brief on appeal discusses the merits of his underlying claims. See Aplt. Br. at 2-4. It does not address his failure to comply with the court’s orders. Mr. Barnes did not pay the filing fee or submit an ifp application, as required to proceed in district court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). The district court warned Mr. Barnes this deficiency could warrant dismissal, supplied the proper ifp application form, and provided him ample opportunity to submit the form or pay the fee. Mr. Barnes did neither. The court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with its orders. See Ecclesiastes 9:10-11-12, 497 F.3d at 1143; Gonzales v. Bernalillo Cty. Dist. Ct., 640 F. App’x 759, 761 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (affirming Rule 41(b) dismissal without prejudice when plaintiff failed to comply with court’s order to submit ifp materials under § 1915(a)).3 3 Although not precedential, we find the reasoning of this unpublished opinion instructive. See 10th Cir. R. 32.1 (“Unpublished decisions are not precedential, but may be cited for their persuasive value.”); see also Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. 4 Appellate Case: 19-2203 Document: 010110350085 Date Filed: 05/20/2020 Page: 5 Because Mr. Barnes has not advanced any “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument” in support of his appeal, we deny his request to proceed ifp. Lister v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005).