Espinoza-Horiuchi v. Walmart Stores, Inc.

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 22, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
NADINE ESPINOZA-HORIUCHI,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 17-1080
(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-00219-REB-NYW)
(D. Colo.)
WALMART STORES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Nadine Espinoza-Horiuchi sued Walmart, Inc. for employment discrimination.
She appeals regarding two district court orders. We lack jurisdiction to review the first
order because the notice of appeal was untimely. We affirm as to the second order
because the issue has been inadequately briefed, and Ms. Espinoza-Horiuchi has
otherwise not shown a ground for reversal.
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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.
First, the district court granted summary judgment for Walmart and issued a final
judgment on December 27, 2016. On January 9, 2017, the court struck Ms. Espinoza-
Horiuchi’s motion for reconsideration from the docket. She filed her notice of appeal on
February 28, 2017. Because she filed the notice more than 30 days from entry of the
judgment, we lack jurisdiction to review the grant of summary judgment. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208 (2007).
Second, on February 23, 2017, the district court issued a bill of costs for Walmart
for $848.80. Ms. Espinoza-Horiuchi’s February 28, 2017 notice of appeal mentions the
bill of costs and therefore was timely filed for our review of this issue. The bill of costs
($848.80) covered the “[c]osts incident to taking of depositions” totaling $792.00 and
“[o]ther expenses” totaling $56.80. ROA at 262. The district court attached copies of
materials supporting these costs. Id. at 263-64. Ms. Espinoza-Horiuchi’s brief argues
only that the “records of me going to court which were/are irrelevant to the case and
expected me to pay for the Bill of Costs for these records.” Aplt. Br. at 4 (emphasis in
original). The brief does not specify which “records” were irrelevant or why they were
irrelevant, and does not show why they district court may have erred in issuing the bill of
costs. The issue is therefore inadequately briefed. See Birch v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 812
F.3d 1238, 1249 (10th Cir. 2015). Ms. Espinoza-Horiuchi has not otherwise
demonstrated a ground for reversal.
-2-
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we dismiss the appeal of the
summary judgment decision for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the district court’s bill of
costs.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-