211 F.3d 527, 533 (10th Cir.2000). Plaintiffs assert that their Rooker-Feld-man arguments could be found in the pleadings they did file and even though they ignored the district court’s directive to brief the issue, the court erred in not looking for these arguments and authorities. We disagree. “No matter how often they are made to feel the part, our brothers and sisters on the district court bench should not be cast in the role of stage director of the litigation drama- — forced to prod the actors through rehearsals until the proper performance is achieved.” Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190, 1199 (10th Cir.2000). We decline to impose a requirement on the district court to sift through a party’s pleadings to uncover an argument that the party should have briefed. See id. (<HOLDING>). It is true that the issue of the
holding district court did not err by considering a contract central to the dispute without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment holding district court not required to uncover disputed facts when considering summary judgment motion holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that the entire record may be examined when considering a summary judgment motion