FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT June 4, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
RICHITA MARIE HACKFORD; Clerk of Court
NATHAN S. COLLET; OPAL S.
HACKFORD; RICHARD D.
HACKFORD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. No. 14-4027
(D.C. No. 2:11-CV-00084-DB)
STATE OF UTAH; DUCHESNE (D. Utah)
COUNTY; ROOSEVELT CITY
CORPORATION; PETE BUTCHER,
Officer/Detective; DUCHESNE
COUNTY JAIL; WALLACE
HENDRICKS; ROOSEVELT ADULT
PROBATION & PAROLE; TOM
KOSMACK; BRAD DRAPER, Officer;
UINTAH COUNTY; VERNAL CITY
CORPORATION; UINTAH COUNTY
JAIL; CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
OF LATTER DAY SAINTS;
ROOSEVELT CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
* 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. Accordingly, the case is ordered submitted without oral argument. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent
except under the doctrines of law of the case, claim preclusion, and issue preclusion. It
may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.
The district court dismissed this case because the plaintiffs failed to serve process on
the defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. We conclude that the
plaintiffs have forfeited their right to have that judgment reviewed. Even though the
plaintiffs are pro se, their briefs contain no perceivable argument that the district erred in
dismissing the case. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840–41
(10th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal where a pro se plaintiff made no argument of
substance in his briefs). We affirm the district court’s judgment.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
-2-