Appellate Case: 21-2096 Document: 010110630223 Date Filed: 01/11/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 11, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JASON TEAGUE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 21-2096 (D.C. No. 2:20-CV-00018-KWR-KRS) SERGEANT LEWIS RIDDLE, (D. N.M.)

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

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

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Jason Teague appeals the district court’s dismissal of

this case without prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and 41(b).

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.1

* 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 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 1 Because Mr. Teague appears pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, but we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). Appellate Case: 21-2096 Document: 010110630223 Date Filed: 01/11/2022 Page: 2

In his complaint, Mr. Teague alleged that Sergeant Lewis Riddle improperly

confiscated his firearm during execution of a search warrant. Mr. Teague failed to

comply with multiple court orders, including three orders to cooperate in preparing a

Joint Status Report and Provisional Discovery Plan and two orders to show cause. He

also failed to appear at a Rule 16(c) scheduling conference.

The magistrate judge, applying the factors set forth in Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992), recommended dismissal of the complaint without

prejudice. The district court adopted the recommendation and entered judgment.

We review a dismissal without prejudice under Rules 16(f) and 41(b) for abuse of

discretion. Gripe v. City of Enid, Okla., 312 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002); Olsen v.

Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 (10th Cir. 2003).

In his brief on appeal, Mr. Teague does not challenge the grounds for the district

court’s dismissal. As a general rule, a party’s failure to address an issue in the opening

brief constitutes waiver of the issue. See Wyoming v. Livingston, 443 F.3d 1211, 1216

(10th Cir. 2006) (“Wyoming did not address this issue in its opening appellate brief. The

issue is therefore waived.”); accord LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917,

927 n.10 (10th Cir. 2004). This rule applies equally to pro se litigants. See Toevs v. Reid,

685 F.3d 903, 911 (10th Cir. 2012). Mr. Teague therefore has waived an appellate

challenge to the district court’s dismissal.

2 Appellate Case: 21-2096 Document: 010110630223 Date Filed: 01/11/2022 Page: 3

We otherwise affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate

judge and the district court.

Affirmed.

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge

3