ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Pro se plaintiff Cynthia Gay Royce appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her second amended complaint. Because Ms. Royce has failed to adequate *560 ly frame and develop any issues on appeal regarding the court’s order, 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 County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). Indeed, Rule 28(a)(9) 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. Royce’s opening brief; instead it lays out her unsubstantiated — albeit detailed — version of the facts and argues she was wrongly denied discovery and “treated in an unfair manner” by the district court. Aplt. Opening Br. at 4. Thus, in order to reverse the district court’s order, we would have to construct arguments or theories for Ms. Royce ourselves. This we cannot do. Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009), petition for cert filed (U.S. Dec. 21, 2009) (No. 09-8384) (explaining that the “rule of liberal construction stops ... at the point at which we begin to serve as [an] advocate.”). 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).

Ms. Royce’s motion for discovery is DENIED. Her motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. The appeal is DISMISSED.