Opinion ID: 6349520
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bodily integrity

Text: On appeal, Ms. Blackford also contends the PHO implicates the fundamental right of bodily integrity and the district court erred by failing to reach the same conclusion. In the request for a preliminary injunction, Ms. Blackford argued the PHO “[v]iolates . . . the Fourth Amendment’s protection of [b]odily [i]ntegrity.” App. at 27. But she did not explain how the Fourth Amendment would apply in the context of her substantive due process or equal protection claims, nor did she cite any authority or include any argument supporting the conclusion. As a result, the district court did not address whether the PHO implicates the fundamental right to bodily integrity. This failure was not an abuse of discretion because Ms. Blackford did not adequately present the argument to the district court. See Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190, 1199 (10th Cir. 2000) (“The district court was not obligated to comb the record in order to make [the plaintiff’s] arguments for him.”).