Opinion ID: 169685
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Anderson's Intrusion Upon Seclusion Claim

Text: Turning briefly to the district court's dismissal of Anderson's intrusion upon seclusion claim, Anderson provides no support in her opening brief for her contention that the district court erred in dismissing this claim. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 33-35. She cites cases which set forth the elements of an intrusion claim, but fails to tie those cases to the facts of her case. The only other reference to her intrusion claim is in her Statement of the Issues for Review, where she states: The district court erred in dismissing a state claim for intrusion into seclusion because release of the entire rape video to the KOCO defendants was an intentional intrusion into a private matter highly offensive to a reasonable person. . . . The violations of federal privacy and the state intrusion into seclusion were completed when Blake released the video to the KOCO defendants. Id. at 4-5. These arguments are not only untethered to any legal citation, but also are too conclusory to permit judicial review. See Am. Airlines v. Christensen, 967 F.2d 410, 415 n. 8 (10th Cir.1992) (It is insufficient merely to state in one's brief that one is appealing an adverse ruling below without advancing reasoned argument as to the grounds for the appeal. (citing Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(4))). We therefore decline to address any claimed issue involving the district court's dismissal of Anderson's intrusion upon seclusion claim.