Montez, et al v. Romer, et al
ORDER OF SPECIAL MASTERS re: 1611 THIRD REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL MASTERS. The Special Masters withdraw the Third Report and Recommendation, as the issue has been resolved and is moot, by Special Master Richard M. Borchers on 09/18/09. (wjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 92-CV-870-JLK JESSE MONTEZ, et al. Plaintiffs, -vs.BILL RITTER, et al. Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER OF SPECIAL MASTERS ______________________________________________________________________________ THIS MATTER comes before the Special Masters on their own motion. The Special Masters have been advised that the Third Report and Recommendation of the Special Masters has not been acted upon. #1611. Judge Nottingham did not issue any order concerning this report and recommendation before he left the Court. The issue raised in the Third Report and Recommendation dealt with special name tags that were green in color. These were issued by Defendants to inmates with disabilities. One inmate objected, indicating that a specially colored name tag placed him at risk in the inmate population. Shortly after the Third Report and Recommendation was issued, Defendants changed the name tag policy. Inmates are not required to wear special name tags. The issue is moot. There is no reason for the Third Report and Recommendation to be dealt with by Judge Kane who is now assigned to the case. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Special Masters withdraw the Third Report and Recommendation, as the issue has been resolved and is moot. SIGNED this 18th day of September, 2009. BY THE COURT: /s/ Richard M. Borchers ______________________________________ Richard M. Borchers Special Master
Bruce D. Pringle Special Master Richard C. Davidson Special Master
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?