Montez, et al v. Romer, et al

Filing 5423

ORDER denying 5394 Objection Motion for the Montez, as to Robert Blanchard, #X-563, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 9/24/13.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 92-cv-00870-CMA
JESSE MONTEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ON CLAIMANT BLANCHARD’S OBJECTION

This matter is before the Court on Claimant Robert Blanchard’s “Objection
Motion for the Montez,” filed on July 5, 2013. (Doc. # 5394.) In this motion, the Court
discerns that Claimant objects to the May 23, 2013 Order of Dismissal by the Special
Master (Doc. # 5381). 1 (Id.)
Abuse of discretion is the standard of review in this instance. (Article XXXII of
the Remedial Plan.) The Special Master “abuses [his] discretion when [he] renders a
judgment that is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” United
States v. Regan, 627 F.3d 1348, 1352 (10th Cir. 2010). In many cases “there will be
a range of possible outcomes the facts and law at issue can fairly support; rather than
pick and choose among them,” the Court will defer to the Special Master’s judgment

1

Claimant does not specifically reference the Special Master’s May 23, 2013 Order (Doc.
# 5381), nor does he articulate any objection to the ruling in that Order. (See Doc. # 5394.)
However, because the Special Master issued only one ruling on Claimant’s claims (Doc.
# 5381), the Court discerns that his “objection” relates to that ruling.

“so long as it falls within the realm of these rationally available choices.” United States
v. McComb, 519 F.3d 1049, 1053 (10th Cir. 2007).
In the Order of Dismissal, the Special Master dismissed Claimant’s claim
because it was not filed on or before April 30, 2010. (Doc. # 5381 at 2.) The Special
Master’s ruling complies with the Court’s April 6, 2010 Order, authorizing the Special
Masters to accept only those pro se pleadings filed on or before April 30, 2010. (Doc.
# 4412.)
In the instant motion, Claimant does not argue that the Special Master abused
his discretion in the May 23, 2013 Order of Dismissal. (See Doc. # 5394.) Rather,
Claimant asks the Court to explain his legal options. (Id. at 2.) The Court repeats the
Special Master’s instructions on this point: Claimant has the right to pursue his own
action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (See Doc. # 5381 at 2.)
Because Claimant has not offered any evidence showing that the Special Master
abused his discretion in issuing the May 23, 2013, Order of Dismissal (Doc. # 5381),
it is ORDERED that Claimant’s “Objection Motion for the Montez” (Doc. # 5394) is
DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the May 23, 2013, Order of Dismissal of the Special
Master (Doc. # 5381) is AFFIRMED.
DATED: September

24

, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Jud
2