Opinion ID: 172896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ms. Phillips Failed to Argue on Appeal the Dismissal of her Federal Claims

Text: Ms. Phillips has not argued on appeal the dismissal of her § 1983 claims, so we do not decide whether the district court erred by dismissing those claims. In her briefs on appeal, Ms. Phillips challenged the fairness and constitutionality of the Kansas notice statute, and argued that, even if Kansas's notice statute is generally appropriate, it should not apply to her state claims of sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She did not, however, raise and argue any explicit challenge to the application of Kansas's notice statute to her federal claims under § 1983, so we do not reach that issue. See Doebele v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 342 F.3d 1117, 1140 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding that issues not raised on appeal are deemed waived); Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116, 1128-29 (10th Cir. 1999) (declining to reach a non-jurisdictional issue that was not raised below or on appeal). [3] Accordingly, we do not decide whether the district court appropriately dismissed Ms. Phillips's § 1983 claims. [4]