Jiron v. Valdez, No. 13-1460 (10th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT February 3, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court MICHAEL JIRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAYMOND VALDEZ; ERIC SCHWIESON; MARIA ZERBIE, and her clients; JUDGE GOLDBERGER; CONEJOS COUNTY, on behalf of Judge Swift; HUFFERNO COUNTY, Welsenberger, No. 13-1460 (D. Colorado) (D.C. No. 1:13-CV-01952-LTB) Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. The district court dismissed Michael Jiron s suit because his complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm the district court s judgment because Jiron has forfeited his right to have that judgment reviewed. Even though Jiron is pro se, his appellate brief contains no argument that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. See Garrett v. Selby Connor * After examining the briefs and the 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). This 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 41 (10th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal order where a pro se plaintiff made no argument of substance in his briefs). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment, we deny Jiron s other motions as moot, and we deny Jiron s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We remind him that he must pay the filing and docket fees in full to the clerk of the district court. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.