F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 4 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROBERT E. GROSS, by and on behalf
of himself and The Bob Gross Family
Limited Partnership, Robert E. Gross,
General Partner,
No. 96-1351
Plaintiff-Appellant, (D.C. No. 96-S-392)
(D. Colo.)
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and CAUTHRON, ** District Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
Honorable Robin J. Cauthron, District Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
Robert E. Gross appeals the district court’s dismissal of his quiet title
action against the United States. He brought the suit pro se, on his own behalf
and on behalf of the Bob Gross Family Limited Partnership, challenging a tax lien
recorded by the Internal Revenue Service against certain real property in
Colorado. The property had been conveyed in 1991 from Donna Bushnell to the
Regent Family Limited Partnership. The IRS tax lien was recorded against the
property in 1992. In 1995, a second deed was recorded, purporting to correct the
1991 deed; in it Donna Bushnell reconveyed the property to the Bob Gross Family
Limited Partnership. The deed acknowledged that the Regent Family Limited
Partnership was not an entity in existence at the time of the first deed.
The district court, adopting the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge, and addressing appellant’s objections thereto, dismissed the suit
based on its conclusions that appellant lacked standing to bring the suit, both as
an individual and on behalf of the Bob Gross Family Limited Partnership. The
court also denied appellant’s request for leave to amend his complaint to add a
claim regarding the United States’ tax lien, ruling that appellant lacked standing
to challenge the lien. Alternatively, the district court held that the complaint
failed to state a valid quiet title claim. In light of this alternative holding, the
court also denied appellant’s request for additional time to obtain counsel.
-2-
On appeal, appellant contends that the IRS lien is invalid due to alleged
violations in the applicable notice provisions. Further, he contends that the
district court erred in concluding that his complaint failed to state a valid quiet
title claim. Appellee counters that the district court correctly dismissed the case
due to appellant’s lack of standing and lack of ability to represent the limited
partnership and notes that appellant did not address these issues. Appellee further
argues that the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action. On reply,
appellant states that the district court abused its discretion in denying him the
opportunity to obtain an attorney, again challenges the district court’s ruling that
the complaint failed to state a claim, and requests leave to supplement the record.
Appellee has moved to strike the proffered additions to the record and any
discussion thereof in the reply brief.
Generally, we would review the district court’s rulings on standing
de novo. See Committee to Save the Rio Hondo v. Lucero, 102 F.3d 445, 447 n.5
(10th Cir. 1996). However, appellant failed to address these issues in either his
opening brief or his reply brief. Therefore, even under the liberal standards
afforded pro se litigants, see United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 427 (10th
Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 2497 (1996), he has waived those issues,
see State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d 979, 984 n.7 (10th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint.
-3-
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in failing to
grant him additional time to obtain an attorney, based on his contentions that his
complaint did state a valid claim for relief. After careful review of the parties’
briefs, the record on appeal, and the applicable law, we conclude that the district
court correctly ruled that the facts alleged in appellant’s complaint, together with
the applicable law, failed to state a valid claim. 1 Accordingly, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request. For substantially the
reasons stated in the court’s order dated June 2, 1996, and in the magistrate’s
report and recommendation, dated April 23, 1996, the judgment of the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. The mandate
shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Robin J. Cauthron
District Judge
1
We grant appellee’s motion to strike the proposed additions to the record
on appeal. The two documents appellant proffers were not presented to the
district court and, in any case, do not support the propositions for which they are
offered. See Aero-Medical, Inc. v. United States, 23 F.3d 328, 329 n.2 (10th Cir.
1994).
-4-