Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    Zander v. Knight Transportation, 10th Cir. (2017)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The original discovery deadline was in 2013, but due to Zander's misconduct and dilatory tactics, his deposition was delayed until 2015. He failed to appear for his deposition in 2015 despite court orders. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice and imposed $1,000 in attorney's fees as a sanction. Zander's appeal brief was incomprehensible and failed to articulate any coherent legal argument, so the

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Zander v. Knight Transportation, 10th Cir. (2017)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    61 views12 pages
    The original discovery deadline was in 2013, but due to Zander's misconduct and dilatory tactics, his deposition was delayed until 2015. He failed to appear for his deposition in 2015 despite court orders. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice and imposed $1,000 in attorney's fees as a sanction. Zander's appeal brief was incomprehensible and failed to articulate any coherent legal argument, so the

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2017-04-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 16-3018

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The original discovery deadline was in 2013, but due to Zander's misconduct and dilatory tactics, his deposition was delayed until 2015. He failed to appear for his deposition in 2015 despite court orders. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice and imposed $1,000 in attorney's fees as a sanction. Zander's appeal brief was incomprehensible and failed to articulate any coherent legal argument, so the

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    61 views12 pages

    Zander v. Knight Transportation, 10th Cir. (2017)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The original discovery deadline was in 2013, but due to Zander's misconduct and dilatory tactics, his deposition was delayed until 2015. He failed to appear for his deposition in 2015 despite court orders. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice and imposed $1,000 in attorney's fees as a sanction. Zander's appeal brief was incomprehensible and failed to articulate any coherent legal argument, so the

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 12

    FILED

    United States Court of Appeals


    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 18, 2017


    _________________________________
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    WILLIAM P. ZANDER,

    Plaintiff - Appellant,

    v. No. 16-3018
    (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-04016-KHV-GLR)
    KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC.; (D. Kan.)
    GLEN PALMER, JASON JONES,
    SHAWN BELL, KEVIN PREWITT,
    MICHAEL HITCHCOCK, DAVID
    SHOBE, individually and as employees of
    Knight Transportation, Inc.,

    Defendants - Appellees.
    _________________________________

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*


    _________________________________

    Before MATHESON, McKAY, and OBRIEN, Circuit Judges.


    _________________________________

    William P. Zander has filed this frivolous pro se appeal challenging the district

    courts dismissal of his employment action and imposition of $1,000.00 in attorneys

    fees as a sanction for his noncompliance with discovery orders. The original

    discovery deadline was November 22, 2013, but via misconduct and dilatory tactics,

    *
    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.
    Mr. Zander delayed the date of his deposition until May 27, 2015. On that date, he

    still failed to appear, despite multiple judicial directives to submit to a deposition, a

    previous sanction of $500.00, and repeated warnings that noncompliance with

    discovery could result in dismissal. Consequently, a magistrate judge issued a report

    evaluating the Ehrenhaus factors1 and recommending the case be dismissed with

    prejudice and attorneys fees of $1,000.00 be imposed for Mr. Zanders

    noncompliance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), (d)(3). On de novo review, the

    district court entered an order adopting the recommendation in its entirety.

    Mr. Zander has now filed an incomprehensible brief on appeal, which is

    attached to this order and judgment. He indicates the courts rigged everything, and

    his printer broke so [he] know[s] the corruption of the court. Aplt. Br. at 1. He

    also says someone perpetrated a fraud on the court, and he concludes with vague

    political and race-based remarks. We afford these pro se comments a liberal

    construction, but Mr. Zander has forfeited appellate review by failing to articulate

    any coherent argument supported by adequate legal authority. See Garrett v. Selby

    Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840-41 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Bronson v.

    Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) ([W]e routinely have declined to

    consider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an

    1
    See Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992).
    2
    appellants opening brief.). Therefore, the district courts judgment is affirmed.

    Entered for the Court

    Terrence L. OBrien
    Circuit Judge

    3
    Appellate Case: 16-3018 Document: 01019594891 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 1
    Appellate Case: 16-3018 Document: 01019594891 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 2
    Appellate Case: 16-3018 Document: 01019594891 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 3
    Appellate Case: 16-3018 Document: 01019594891 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 4
    Appellate Case: 16-3018 Document: 01019594891 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 5
    Appellate Case: 16-3018 Document: 01019594891 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 6
    Appellate Case: 16-3018 Document: 01019594891 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 7
    Appellate Case: 16-3018 Document: 01019594891 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 8
    Appellate Case: 16-3018 Document: 01019594891 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 9

    You might also like