Hoid v. Select Justice LLC

Appellate Case: 25-1431 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 6, 2026 _______________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court EDWARD H. HOID; MAXWELL HEMRIC, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. No. 25-1431 (Case No. 1:25-CV-02228-JLK-RTG) SELECT JUSTICE LLC; DOLMAN (D. Colo.) LAW GROUP; MILLER AND ZOIS LLC; FARR LAW FIRM; LEVY KONIGSBERG; SINGLETON SCHREIBER; GOOGLE, Defendants - Appellees. _______________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _______________________________________ Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _______________________________________ Mr. Edward Hoid and Mr. Maxwell Hemric appeal the dismissal without prejudice of their civil rights action.

* Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have decided the appeal based on the record and the briefing. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).

Appellate Case: 25-1431 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 2

The appellants alleged membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As members of the Church, the appellants sued law firms, Google, and ABC News based on these organizations’ airing of allegations of sexual abuse within the Church. The crux of the claims is that these organizations harmed the Church through religious persecution.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of standing and violation of pleading requirements, and the district judge adopted the recommendations.

In their appellate brief, Mr. Hoid and Mr. Hemric do not challenge the district court’s reasoning. Instead, they assert only that the district court acted “with hate and prejudice.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 4. By failing to address the district court’s reasoning, Mr. Hoid and Mr. Hemric have waived appellate review of the dismissal. See Clark v. Colbert, 895 F.3d 1258, 1265 (10th Cir. 2018) (stating that “we will not question the reasoning of a district court unless an appellant ‘actually argue[s]’ against it”) (quoting Phillips v. Calhoun, 956 F.2d 949, 954 (10th Cir. 1992) (alteration in original)).

Appellate Case: 25-1431 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 3

We thus affirm the dismissal. 1 Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

We grant the appellants’ motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.