Palmer v. UPS Freight ( 2018 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 16, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
KENDALL S. PALMER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JOSEPH R. HART,
No. 17-1276
Plaintiff, (D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01441-RPM)
(D. Colo.)
v.
UPS FREIGHT,
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MORITZ, McKAY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Plaintiff Kendall Palmer, proceeding pro se, appeals the summary judgment
entered in favor of his former employer UPS Freight on his claims of employment
discrimination in violation of Title VII and Colorado state law. Co-plaintiff Joseph
Hart also attempts to appeal, but he did not file a timely notice of appeal, so we lack
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
jurisdiction over his appeal. See United States v. Langham, 77 F.3d 1280, 1280
(10th Cir. 1996) (“A timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional.”).
Mr. Palmer may bring his own claims pro se, but not Mr. Hart’s claims. See Pajarito
Plateau Homesteaders, Inc. v. United States, 346 F.3d 983, 986 (10th Cir. 2003)
(“A non-lawyer may not represent another individual on appeal and cannot file a
notice of appeal on another’s behalf.”).
We liberally construe Mr. Palmer’s pro se filings. See Garrett v. Selby Connor
Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). We do not, however, “take on
the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and
searching the record.” Id. Moreover, “pro se parties [must] follow the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In his opening brief, Mr. Palmer argues (1) he is a Moorish American
governed by the Laws of the Moroccan Treaty of Friendship of 1787 and Article VI
of the United States Constitution; (2) he has a Seventh Amendment right to a trial;
(3) he is a “Natural Man;” (3) “through trickery, deceit and word art, [he was]
handled as a straw m[a]n and artificial person[] who had no standing;” (4) his case
was “handled outside of the Law of The Land;” and (5) jurisdiction was lacking
because the district judge failed to “first prove His STATUS on the record.” Aplt.
Opening Br. at 2-3.
This is inadequate appellate argument. Mr. Palmer has failed to develop
any issue for appellate review. His opening brief does not explain how his cited
legal authorities—the Constitution and a Moroccan treaty—undermine the
2
summary-judgment ruling in this employment-discrimination case. See Simpson v.
T.D. Williamson Inc., 414 F.3d 1203, 1206 n.4 (10th Cir. 2005) (rejecting general
argument unsupported by legal authority or any argument that appellant’s position is
sound despite a lack of authority). Therefore, we deem his arguments waived and
decline to consider them. See Wilburn v. Mid–South Health Dev., Inc., 343 F.3d
1274, 1281 (10th Cir. 2003) (“We . . . will not consider issues that are raised on
appeal but not adequately addressed.”); Adler v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664,
679 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Arguments inadequately briefed in the opening brief are
waived . . . .”). Mr. Palmer’s arguments presented for the first time in his reply brief
are also waived. See Toevs v. Reid, 685 F.3d 903, 911 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Arguments
not clearly made in a party’s opening brief are deemed waived.”).
Mr. Palmer’s Motion Contesting Order to Remove Joseph R. Hart as Appellant
and Motion to Supplement the Record with recordings that were not submitted to the
district court are denied. The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
3