Princess J. ANTHONY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALORICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 380 F. App'x 766

ORDER AND JUDGMENT STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. 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. Plaintiff and appellant, Princess Anthony,' a black female, filed two underlying Title VII lawsuits after defendant and ap-pellee Alorica, Inc. terminated her employment. The two cases were consolidated.

Following repeated attempts to complete discovery, Alorica filed a motion to dismiss the cases. The magistrate judge to whom the matter was referred recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted as a sanction against Ms. Anthony. The magistrate judge described Ms. Anthony’s repeated failure to respond to court orders and directives, as well as her failure to respond to disclosure requirements, even after she was given extra time to do so. Subsequently, on December 4, 2009, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full, and dismissed the consolidated actions.

This appeal followed. Except for a brief period of time, Ms. Anthony has proceeded pro se. We have carefully read the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation, and numerous other orders entered throughout the case, as well as the complete record. We can add nothing to the analysis contained therein. While we are sympathetic to Ms.

Anthony’s plight, with a seriously ill child, and the problems she purports to have with the United States mail service, neither those situations nor her pro se status excuse her from complying with the most basic and fundamental procedural rules of our courts. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the dismissal of the consolidated Title VII actions, for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s order dated December 4, 2009. Any other pending motions are DENIED. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.