Appellate Case: 25-3127 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court VINCENT D. GAYLORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 25-3127 (D.C. No. 2:25-CV-02194-EFM-RES) STATE OF KANSAS; TOPEKA POLICE (D. Kan.) DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

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

Vincent Gaylord, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against the State of Kansas and the Topeka Police Department,

which alleged various civil rights violations. 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 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 1 Because Mr. Gaylord 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: 25-3127 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 2

After Mr. Gaylord filed an amended complaint, a magistrate judge issued a

report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The R&R said the Eleventh Amendment barred his claims against

Kansas and that the Topeka Police Department lacked capacity to be sued under

Kansas law.

Mr. Gaylord objected to the R&R, arguing “in general terms that he was

entitled to relief.” ROA at 116. The district court adopted the R&R and dismissed

the case.

On appeal, Mr. Gaylord asserts that the district court dismissed for his failing

to file timely objections. Aplt. Br at 3. But the court found his objections “to be

timely.” ROA at 116. It dismissed because Mr. Gaylord did not challenge the

R&R’s recommended grounds to dismiss. On appeal, he again fails to do so, and “we

will not question the reasoning of a district court unless an appellant actually argues

against it.” Clark v. Colbert, 895 F.3d 1258, 1265 (10th Cir. 2018) (alterations

adopted and citations and quotations omitted); see also Platt v. Winnebago Indus.,

Inc., 960 F.3d 1264, 1271 (10th Cir. 2020) (“We have held that a failure to raise an

issue in an opening brief waives that issue . . . .”) (quotations omitted). 2

2 We ordered Mr. Gaylord to address “whether he waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal determinations in the magistrate judge’s R&R by failing to file specific objections to the R&R.” Dkt. No. 2. We do not rely on the firm waiver rule to decide this appeal.

2 Appellate Case: 25-3127 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 3

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

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge

3