Altschwager v. Progressive Casualty Insurance

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
ANNETTE J. ALTSCHWAGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 19-1240
(D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00280-WJM-MEH)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

_________________________________
Before LUCERO, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Pro se plaintiff Annette J. Altschwager appeals from the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance
Company (Progressive) on her claims for age, gender, and disability discrimination,
as well as retaliation for engaging in protected activities. After Ms. Altschwager
failed to respond to Progressive’s motion, the district court entered a memorandum

*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

March 19, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 19-1240 Document: 010110322043 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 1

2

order, which explained there were no disputed material facts and Progressive was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because Ms. Altschwager has failed to
adequately frame and develop any issues on appeal, we dismiss the appeal.
“While we . . . liberally construe pro se pleadings, an appellant’s pro se status
does not excuse [her of] the obligation . . . to comply with the fundamental
requirements of the Federal Rules of . . . Appellate Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan
Cty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). Rule 28(a)(8)(A) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure requires the appellant’s brief to contain an argument supported
by citations to pertinent legal authorities and the parts of the record upon which she
relies. There are no references to the record or any legal authorities cited in
Ms. Altschwager’s briefs; instead she lays out an unsubstantiated version of her
experiences at Progressive and alleged “due process” defects in the discovery
process, Aplt. Opening Br. at 2, without ever mentioning the district court’s summary
judgment order or where she raised the “due process” issues below.
To reverse the district court, we would have to comb the record and then
construct arguments or theories for Ms. Altschwager, which we cannot do.
See Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991). The failure
to adequately frame and develop any issue is insufficient to invoke appellate review.
Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994).
Appellate Case: 19-1240 Document: 010110322043 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 2

3

The appeal is dismissed.

Entered for the Court

Carolyn B. McHugh
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 19-1240 Document: 010110322043 Date Filed: 03/19/2020 Page: 3