Appellate Case: 20-1417 Document: 010110611722 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 30, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court HUNTER ADAM MELNICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 20-1417 (D.C. No. 1:18-CV-02885-CMA-KLM) JOHN CAMPER, Director of Colorado (D. Colo.) Bureau of Investigation, in his official capacity,

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Hunter Melnick is a convicted sex offender who challenges the

constitutionality of Colorado’s Sex Offender Registration Act (“CSORA”) on several

grounds. The district court, in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion applying

Supreme Court and circuit precedent, dismissed Melnick’s complaint for failure to

state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). As the district court

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 20-1417 Document: 010110611722 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 2

explained, many of Melnick’s allegations stem from a misreading of CSORA.

Melnick appeals that dismissal pro se and raises nearly all the same arguments he

raised in the district court. Yet, none of Melnick’s arguments point us to legal errors

warranting reversal.1 So, upon review of the record de novo and exercising

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the judgment for substantially the

same reasons stated by the district court.2

Entered for the Court

Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge

1 As a pro se litigant, we must liberally construe Melnick’s pleadings, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), without acting as his advocate, Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 2 We also deny Melnick’s motion to supplement the record. 2