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 appeal 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 public utility easement on their property. As a result, 

Comcast filed this action against Defendants in Colorado state court, seeking 

 * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

October 24, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

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 temporary restraining order (TRO) and a 

preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from denying Comcast access to the 

easement. The state court granted Comcast’s motion for a TRO and set a date for a 

hearing on Comcast’s motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants, acting pro se, 

responded by filing (1) a motion to dismiss Comcast’s action for failure to state a 

claim, (2) their own motion for TRO and a preliminary injunction, and (3) an answer 

that included a counterclaim against Comcast. The state court denied Defendants’ 

motions. Defendants then filed a notice removing this action to the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Colorado hours before the preliminary injunction hearing. 

Comcast filed an Emergency Motion to Remand to State Court, urging the 

district court to remand this action because Defendants had waived their right to 

remove the action to federal court 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 Cir. 2017), the district court agreed Defendants had waived 

removal and ordered this action remanded to the state court. R. at 347-49. 

 Defendants timely appealed the district court’s remand order. But in their 

opening brief, they do not mention the order or make any arguments challenging it. 

“[W]e routinely have declined to consider arguments that are not raised, or are 

inadequately presented, in an appellant’s opening brief. . . . Stated differently, the 

omission of an issue in an opening brief generally forfeits appellate consideration of 
3 

that issue.” Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (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 disentitle him to review by this court”). Accordingly, we 

decline to review the district court’s remand order, which is the only issue Defendants 

could properly raise in this court. The district court’s remand order is therefore 

AFFIRMED. 

 Because Defendants have not advanced “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. District Court for the District 

of Colorado. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge