Rags Over the Arkansas River, Inc. v. The Bureau of Land Management et al

Filing 81

ORDER Dismissing Action and Vacating Decision in Part by Judge William J. Martinez on 02/22/2017. (cthom, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 12-cv-0265-WJM RAGS OVER THE ARKANSAS RIVER, INC., Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an agency of the United States, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, an agency of the United States, KEITH E. BERGER, in his official capacity as Field Manager for the Royal Gorge Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management, THOMAS HEINLEIN, in his official capacity as District Manager for the Front Range District of the Bureau of Land Management, RUTH WELCH, in her official capacity as Colorado State Director of the Bureau of Land Management,* and KEVIN “JACK” HAUGRUD, in his official capacity as the Acting Secretary of the Interior,* Respondents, and OVER THE RIVER CORPORATION, Intervenor-Respondent. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND VACATING DECISION IN PART Pursuant to the Order (ECF No. 75) and Mandate (ECF No. 76) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, both dated February 6, 2017, and the Joint Status Report of the parties, dated February 21, 2017 (ECF No. 80), the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. Given Over the River Corporation’s decision not to pursue the project at issue, and the dismissal of the pending appeal as moot, this action is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate this case. 2. Only the portion of the Court’s previous Order Affirming Agency Decision, dated January 2, 2015 (ECF No. 68), Rags Over the Arkansas River, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, et al., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1038 (D. Colo. 2015), regarding Plaintiff's claims brought under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (“FLPMA”) is hereby VACATED, as directed by the Court of Appeals. (See ECF No. 75.) 3. The portion of the same Order regarding Plaintiff’s claims brought under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) is not vacated, since the Court’s decision regarding those NEPA claims was not appealed. (See ECF Nos. 75, 80.) 4. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. Dated this 23rd day of February, 2016. BY THE COURT: William J. Martínez United States District Judge * Ms. Welch and Mr. Haugrud are automatically substituted as parties, as successors to their respective predecessors in office, previously named as parties to this action, Ms. Hankins and Ms. Jewell. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 2

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?