basis to do so under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(2), or Tenth Circuit Rule 40.1(A), the BAP denied the motion: “Appellant has not shown that this Court has overlooked, misapprehended or misconstrued any point of law or fact; indeed, due to the inadequate state of Appellant’s record, no facts were before us to overlook, misapprehend, or misconstrue.” R. Doc. 3 at 2. Mr. Tollefsen then lodged his appeal in this court. Before us, Mr. Tollefsen’s opening brief focuses exclusively on the merits of his bankruptcy case. He does not address the BAP’s affirmance based on his failure to provide that court with an adequate appendix. As a result, he has forfeited his right to a review of the BAP’s decision. See Headrick v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 24 F.3d 1272, 1277-78 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). That Mr. Tollefsen has proceeded pro se
holding that issues not argued in initial brief are deemed waived holding issues referred to in the statement of the case but not discussed in the body of the opening brief are deemed waived holding that issues not raised in a partys opening brief are waived holding that issues not raised in an appellants initial brief are deemed abandoned holding issues not adequately addressed in an appellants opening brief are deemed forfeited