Opinion ID: 2769479
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mr. Brown’s Proffered Factual Disputes

Text: Mr. Brown asserts the district court erred in resolving alleged factual disputes. He first says it was “clear error” for the district court to limit its decision to undisputed facts. Appellant’s Br. at 54. This argument is meritless because summary judgment is appropriate only if “‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.’” Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 762 F.3d 1114, 1118 (10th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)) (emphasis added). Of course, the defendants “must identify portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,” and Mr. Brown was entitled to have the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to him. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998). Mr. Brown cites 321 factual statements, saying they show material disputes disregarded by the district court. For example, he says that a - 10 - factual dispute existed regarding his reasons for not disclosing the criminal cases. But, Mr. Brown’s motivation is irrelevant. The key consideration is whether Mr. Brown disputes that he knowingly gave false answers in his application. He does not dispute that fact. In a related argument, Mr. Brown contends that despite evidence showing material disputes, the district court erred in making the following dispositive factual findings: ● that he lied on his law school application; ● that the defendants’ conduct was not “wanton” for purposes of his state-law negligence claim; ● that he had no reasonable expectation of practicing law and could not show intentional misconduct or malice to support his state-law tortious interference claim; and ● that there was no evidence of unlawful overt acts or meeting of the minds to support his state-law civil conspiracy claim. The first finding involves an uncontested fact, for Mr. Brown does not deny that he intentionally gave false information about his criminal history. We need not address the other three findings, because Mr. Brown does not challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his state-law claims. Indeed, the state-law claims are not listed in Mr. Brown’s statement of the issues in his opening brief. See Aplt. Br. at 3-4. And apart from an isolated reference in his statement of the case, his - 11 - opening brief refers to the state-law claims only in the context of this factual discussion. These scattered references are insufficient to preserve appellate review. See Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994).