December 14, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF… v. No Named

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 14, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
SU LEE, also known as Sunam Lee,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NO NAMED DEFENDANT,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 21-1308
D.C. No. 1:21-CV-01633-LTB
(D. Colo.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
After examining the appellate briefs and the appellate record, this court has
unanimously concluded that oral argument would not materially assist 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.
Proceeding pro se, Su Lee appeals the district court’s dismissal of the
employment action she ostensibly brought against her former employer, Target
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
Appellate Case: 21-1308 Document: 010110618910 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

Corporation. The initial document Lee filed with the district court was in letter
form with multiple attachments. In the letter, she asked the district court if it
would “help [her] to look over the case” she presented to the EEOC. In an
abundance of caution, the district court assigned a case number to Lee’s filing
and ordered her to submit (1) a motion and affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 and (2) an employment discrimination complaint on the appropriate form.1
When Lee failed to comply with the court’s order, the matter was dismissed
without prejudice.
After the dismissal of her action, Lee filed a document titled, “Appeal
Letter,” in which she asked the district court for additional time so she could
speak with an attorney about her case. The court construed the document as a
motion for reconsideration and denied it, concluding Lee’s explanation of her
efforts to work with the Federal Pro Se Clinic did not excuse her failure to
communicate with the court in a timely manner.
Lee timely appealed to this court. In her opening brief, she summarizes her
treatment by her former employer but does not set out a single appellate issue.2
1As the district court noted, it is unclear from the documents Lee filed
whether she is even raising federal claims.
2In addition to the statement of the case, Lee only completed two additional
sections of the appellate form. In answer to the question of what relief she was
seeking on appeal, she stated: “I believe EEO didn’t look at my supporting
document thoroughly and closed my case. Would you please look at my
(continued...)
-2-
Appellate Case: 21-1308 Document: 010110618910 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Even though this court construes the arguments of a pro se litigant liberally,
Lee’s appellate brief contains no argument explaining how the district court erred
by dismissing her action without prejudice and denying her motion for
reconsideration.
This court reviews dismissals pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure for an abuse of discretion. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d
1199, 1204 (10th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the entire record on appeal, we
discern no abuse of discretion in how the district court handled this matter.
Accordingly, the dismissal of Lee’s case without prejudice is affirmed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
2(...continued)
supporting documents? My supporting document is too many pages but I can
bring it to you?” In response to the question of whether oral argument is
requested, Lee stated: “There are a lot of information I can explain better
personally if that is allowed.”
-3-
Appellate Case: 21-1308 Document: 010110618910 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --