ORDER AND JUDGMENT Terrence L. O’Brien Circuit Judge William P. Zander has filed this frivolous pro se appeal challenging the district court’s dismissal of his employment action and imposition of $1,000.00 in attorney’s fees as a sanction for his noncompliance with discovery orders. The original discovery deadline was November 22, 2013, but via misconduct and dilatory tactics, Mr. Zander delayed the date of his deposition until May 27, 2015.
On that date, he still failed to appear, despite multiple judicial directives to submit to a deposition, a previous sanction of $500.00, and repeated warnings that noncompliance with discovery could result in dismissal. Consequently, a magistrate judge issued a report evaluating the Ehrenhaus factors and recommending the case be dismissed with prejudice and attorney’s fees of $1,000.00 be imposed for Mr. Zander’s noncompliance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), (d)(3). On de novo review, the district court entered an order adopting the recommendation in its entirety. Mr.
Zander has now filed an incomprehensible brief on appeal, which is attached to this order and judgment. He indicates “the courts rigged everything,” and his “printer broke so [he] know[s] the corruption of the court.” Aplt. Br. at 1. He also says someone perpetrated a fraud on the court, and he concludes with vague political and race-based remarks. We afford these pro se comments a liberal construction, but Mr. Zander has forfeited appellate review by failing to articulate any coherent argument supported by adequate legal authority. See Garrett v.
Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840-41 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e routinely have declined to consider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an appellant’s opening brief.”). Therefore, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Attachment 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. . See Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992).