Edward H. Hoid; Maxwell Hemric v. Select Justice LLC

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_______________________________________
EDWARD H. HOID; MAXWELL
HEMRIC,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
SELECT JUSTICE LLC; DOLMAN
LAW GROUP; MILLER AND ZOIS
LLC; FARR LAW FIRM; LEVY
KONIGSBERG; SINGLETON
SCHREIBER; GOOGLE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 25-1431
(Case No. 1:25-CV-02228-JLK-RTG)
(D. Colo.)
_______________________________________
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).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 6, 2026
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 25-1431 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

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: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We thus affirm the dismissal. 1
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
1 We grant the appellants’ motions for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
Appellate Case: 25-1431 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --