**UNFORTUNATELY, this was a request AT THE appellate LEVEL ...AND NOT THE D.C. SUPREMES....AND THE CASE IS DEAD! ** DDDDDDDDDDDDDDARN

"Mr. Brunson makes no effort to explain why he failed to specifically challenge the magistrate judge’s standing analysis. The first two factors therefore weigh against invoking the exception...In considering the third factor, “the importance of the issues raised,” we conduct an analysis akin to plain-error review. ...We cannot say the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Brunson lacked standing is plainly erroneous...Thus, the district court did not plainly err in concluding Mr. Brunson lacked standing....Mr. Brunson’s argument does not persuade us otherwise...Finally, Mr. Brunson briefly mentions the magistrate judge’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity analysis, but he develops no argument addressing the magistrate judge’s reasoning other than to direct us to his opposition to the motion to dismiss. That is insufficient to meet this court’s requirements for developing an argument on appeal. ...

III. Conclusion

The district court’s judgment is affirmed"

IN OTHER WORDS, THIS CASE GOT "STOPPED" at the appellate LEVEL ... Appellate Case: 22-4007 Document: 010110749788 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 ...AKA "The district court’s judgment is affirmed"

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/22-4007/22-4007-2022-10-06.pdf?ts=1665075977

BRUNSON is representing himself...and NOT A LAWYER....and as such, suffered serious TECHNICAL inefficiencies in his "brief"... HENCE, WHY THE LOWER COURT (DISTRICT CT) JUDGEMENT was AFFIRMED.