UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ COMCAST OF COLORADO I, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ANDREW J. O’CONNOR; MARY E. HENRY, Defendants - Appellants. No. 19-1013 (D.C. No. 1:18- CV-03158-LTB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , HOLMES , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Defendants-Appellants Andrew J . O’Connor and Mary E. Henry appe al the district court’s order remanding this action to Colorado state court. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Defendants have refused to allow Plaintiff-Appellee Comcast of Colorado I, LLC (Comcast) access to the pub lic utility easement on their pr operty. As a result, Comcast filed this action agains t Defendants in Colorado state court, seeking

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel ha s determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in t he determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is t herefore ordered submitted without oral ar gument. This order and judgme nt is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res j udicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, howev er, for its persuasive value c onsistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 24, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 injunctive and declaratory relief based on Defendants’ alleged violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 521-55. Comcast filed a motion for a tem porary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction prohibiti ng Defendants from denying Comc ast access to the easement. The state court grante d Comcast’s motion for a TRO a nd set a date for a hearing on Comcast’s motion for preliminary injunction. Defend ants, acting pro se, responded by filing (1) a motion to dismiss Comcast’s action fo r failure to state a claim, (2) their own motion for TRO and a preliminary injunctio n, and (3) an answer that included a counterclaim ag ainst Comcast. The state court denied Defendants’ motions. Defendants then filed a notice removing this action t o the U.S. District Court for the District of Colora do hours before the preliminary injunction hearing. Comcast filed an Emerg ency Motion to Remand to State Court, urg ing the district court to remand this ac tion because Defendants had wai ved their right to remove the action to federal c ourt by actively participating in litigation of the case in the state court. Based on our decision in City of Albuquerque v. Soto Enterprises , Inc. , 864 F.3d 1089 (10th Ci r. 2017), the district court agreed Def endants had waived removal and ordered this acti on remanded to the state court. R . at 347-49. Defendants timely appealed the d istrict court’s remand order. But in their opening brief, they do not menti on the order or make any argume nts challenging it. “[W]e routinely have declined to consider arguments that are no t raised, or are inadequately presented, in an a ppellant’s opening brief. . . . Stated differently, the omission of an issue in an openi ng brief generally forfeits app ellate consideration of3 that issue.” Bronson v. Swensen , 500 F.3d 1099, 11 04 (10th Cir. 2007); see Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) ( holding pro se plaintiff’s inadequate “briefs d isentitle him to review by this court”). Accordingly, we decline to review the district court’s remand order, which is t he only issue Defendants could properly raise in this court. The district court’s reman d order is therefore
AFFIRMED. Because Defendants have not adv anced “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument” that the district court erred, DeBardeleben v. Quinlan , 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991), we also DENY their motion to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees. Defendants must immediately pay the filing fee to the Clerk of the U.S. Di strict Court for the District of Colorado.

Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge