Opinion ID: 4517871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Against Eagle County

Text: The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). 6 McDonald argues the district court erred by determining his claims against Eagle County are barred by Rooker-Feldman. We will not consider McDonald’s argument because he has failed to adequately brief the issue; instead, he continues to denounce the actions of the Eagle County District Court, Bellco, the magistrate judge, and the district court. McDonald’s failure to adequately brief the issue means that we will not consider the issue on appeal. See Holmes v. Colo. Coal. For Homeless Long Term Disability Plan, 762 F.3d 1195, 1199 (10th Cir. 2014) (declining to consider arguments on appeal that were inadequately briefed); Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1390 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994) (declining to consider “a few scattered statements” and “perfunctory” arguments that failed to develop an issue). We affirm the district court’s dismissal of McDonald’s claims against Eagle County as barred by Rooker-Feldman.