Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### IN T HE UN I T ED S TATES C OU RT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE FI FTH CIRCUIT

N o. 08- 60716 Su m m ar y Cal endar

M ARK M ONTGOM ERY,
P et i t i on er,

v. AD M I NI S T RA T I VE R EV I EW BOA RD , UNI T ED S T AT ES DE P AR T M ENT OF LA BOR,
R esp on d en t.

P et i t i on F or R evi ew of an O rder of

t h e U n i t ed S t ates D epa rt m en tof L abor A R B C as e N o. 05- 129

B ef ore D E N N IS, C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * M ark M on t gom ery seeks r evi ew of a deci si on of t h e D epa rt m en t of L abor A dm i ni strative R ev i ew B oa rd (A R B ) a ff i rm i n g a r ul i ng of

an A dm i ni st r at ive Law Judge (A LJ) t hatM ont gom er y ’ s di sm i ss alby Jac k i n t he B ox w as notr et al i at or y. W e de ny t he pe t i t i o n. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 2, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60716

2 I M ont gom er y w as em pl oye d as a t r ac t or - t r ai l erdr i verf orJac k i n t he B ox,
a c o r po r at i o n t hat di s t r ibut e s f o o d and r e l at e d s upp l i e s t o c o m pa ny- o w ne d a nd fr a n c h is e d fa s t -fo o d r e s t a u r a n t s . M o n t g o m e r yw o r k e d a tth e c o m p a n y ’s di st r ibut i on c ent eri n D al l as , Texas , unt i lhi s di sm i ss ali n 2003. D u ri n g th e course of hi s em pl oym en t , M on t gom ery m ad e a ser i es of

c o m pl ai nt s t o J ac k i n t he Box , i nc l udi ng r e po r t i ng br o ke n e qui pm e nt , a l l e gi ng
sa fety vio l a ti on s, an d all eg i n g th a t Ja ck i n the B ox ov erw ork ed i ts drive rs. In 2 0 0 3 , J a c k in th e B o xr e c e iv e d a n u m b e ro f c o m p la in t s a b o u tM o n t g o m e r y ’s beh aviorf

rom st ore m an agers, i n cl u di n g com pl ai n t s t h at he ha d bloc ked ot h er del i veri es and ref

u sed t o pl ace p al l et s i n si de t h e stor e. Jack in the B ox w arn ed M on t gom ery t h at h e h ad “ on e l ast cha n ce t o st rai gh t en t h i n gs out” w i t h regard to h is v io la tio n s o f c o m p a n yp o lic y . In O ct ober of 200 3, M on t gom ery at t em pted t o drive h i s 18- w h eelt ract ort r ai l eri nt o as er vi c e s t at i on t o t ake a r es tbr eak. I n doi ng so , M ont gom er y dr ove th e re a rtir e s o f h is 1 8 -w h e e le ro v e ra m e d ia n , ca u s in gth e v e h ic le ’ s d r iv e w h e e ls t o l ose c on t actw i t h t h e groun d. M on t gom ery cal l ed a pri vate w recki n g servi ce,
r at he rt han t he c o m pa ny’ s towi ng s e r vi c e , t o pul lt he t r uc k o f f t he m e di an. M o nt go m e r y di d notre po r tt he i nc i de ntt o Jac k i n t he B o x, de s pi t e a c o m pa ny pol i c y r equi r i ng em pl oye es t o r epo r tal lvehi c l e acc i dent s by t he end of t he day. W h en Jack i n the B ox l earn ed of the i n ci den t , itterm i n ated his em pl oym en tf or “fa ilu r e to re p o r t a n a c c id e n t.” M ont gom er y f

i l ed a c om pl ai ntw i t h t heDe par t m entof Labor , al l egi ng t hat Jack i n t h e B ox ret al i ated a gainsth i m in v i ol ati on of t h e Su rface T ran sport ati onN o. 08- 60716

49U.S.C . §§ 31 101 -311 07. 2 Macktal v. C

hao , 2 8 6F .3 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 5( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). 35U .S .C

. § 7 0 6 (2)(

A ); Macktal v. U

.S. Dep’t of Labor , 17 1 F. 3 d 32 3 , 32 6( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 9). 4
4 9U .S .C

. § 3 1 1 0 5 (b)( 1 ). 5 3 As s i s t a nc e Ac t( STAA)

. Af t e rh o l d i nga n e v i d e nt i a r yh e a r i ng , t he ALJ 2

r e c o m m e nde d d i s m i s s alo f M o nt go m e r y’ s c o m pl ai nt

. The AR B r e vi e w e d t he A L J ’s r e c o m m e n d a t io n a n d is s u e d a fi n a l d e c is io n d e n y in ga llo f M o n t g o m e r y ’s

c la im s . T h e A R B de n i ed M on tgo m ery ’ s m oti on f or re con sider a ti on , an d this pe t i t i o n f

o rr e vi e w f

o l l o w e d. II W e revi ew an agen cy’ s r u l i n gs un der th e stand ard of revi ew est abli shed i n t he A dm i ni st r at i ve Proc edur e Act

. U ndert hats t andard, w e w i l laf f i r m an 3 A R B ’ s deci si on an d o rd e r “ u n l ess i ti s arbi t rary, capri ci ou s, an abu se of di sc r et i on, orot her w i se co nt r ar y t o l aw , orunl es s i ti s nots upport ed by

s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .” 4 III I n hi s pet i t i on f

orr evi ew , M ont gom er y r ai se s a nu m b er of pr oc edur al

o bj e c t i o ns t o t he AR B’ s ha ndl i ng o f hi s c as e . Fi r s t , M o nt go m e r y ar gue s t hatt he A L J i n corr ect l y gran t ed Jack i n t h e B ox’ s m ot i on i n l i m i n e. I n t h at m ot i on , Jack i n t h e B ox argu ed that M on t gom ery shou l d be den i ed recover y f or any adv erse
a c t i o n s t h a tt o o k p l a c e mo r e t h a n 1 8 0 d a y s pr i o r t o t h e f i l i n go f h i s S TAA

com pl ai n t

. B ecau se t h e S T AArequi res a com pl ai n an tt o f i l e a w h i st l ebl ow er
c la im “n o t la te r th a n 1 8 0 d a y s a fte rth e a lle g e d v io la tio n o c c u r r e d ,” th e A L J d id 5

n oterrw h en i tgran t ed Ja ck i n t h e B o x ’ s m o t i on . M on t gom ery f u rt h er
c o m pl ai ns t hathe di d no tha ve fai rno t i c e o f t he m o t i o n a nd t hat , i n t heN o. 08- 60716

See Bat istev. B urke , 7 4 6F .2 d 2 5 7 , 2 5 8n .1 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 4). 6 Yohey v. Collins , 9 8 5F .2 d 2 2 2 , 2 2 5( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 3). 7 4 al t e r nat i ve , J ac k i n t he Boxw aive d a ny r e l i anc e o n t he 1 80

- da y c l ai m - f i l i ng
w i n dow becau se t h e com pa n y di d n otasser ti tas an a f f i rm ative defense. B ecau se M on t gom ery di d not rai se t h ese obj ect i on s at t h e t i m e of t ri al , how ever, t he y ar e w aive d. 6 S econd , M on t gom ery a rgues t h at the A L J an d t h e A R B erred w h en t h ey fai l ed t o de em as adm i t t ed v ar i ous al l egat i ons t hathe m ade i n pos t

- t r i al subm i s s i o ns , g i ve n t hatJ ac k i n t he Boxdi d no ts pe c i f i c al l y de ny t ho se al l egati on s. Fed eralR u l e of C i vi lP rocedure 8(b) ( 6) provi des t h at an al l egati on i s adm i t te d “if

a res pon sive pl ead i n g i s r equ i red an d the al l egati on i s not deni e d. ” I n t hi s c as e , ho w e ve r , no al l e ga t i o ns s ho ul d hav e be e n adm i t t ed bec ause no r es ponsive pl eadi ng w as r equi red af t erM ont gom er y’ s pos t

- t r i al

m oti on s f

or a n e w t r ia l

. T h ere fore, the A L J an d the A R B pr op erly refu sed to de e m M o nt go m e r y’ s a l l e ga t i o ns a s a dm i t t e d. T h ir d , M o n tg o m e r y c o n te n d s th a t th e A R B a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n w h e n it d e n ie d h is m o t io n fo rr e c o n s id e r a t io n . T h e A R B c h a r a c t e r iz e d M o n t g o m e r y ’s

m o t i o n a s “ r e has h[ i ng] a r gum e nt s t he Boa r d ha s a l r e ad y c o ns i de r e d a nd rej ect ed. ” M on t gom ery provi des n o reason t o suspect t h at t h e A R B com m i t t ed reversibl e err or i n t h i s i n st an ce. Four t h, M o nt go m e r y ar gue s t hat t he AR B v i o l at e d hi s due pr o c e s s r i ght t o a ful la n d fai r tr i alon t h e m eri t s. M on t gom ery of fers n o argu m en ti n sup port of t hi s c on t ent i on, be yond a st at em entt hatadj udi c at i ve t r ibunal s m ustgive l i t i gan t s a fai r t ri al

. A l t h ou gh w e w i l ll iberal l y constr u e t h e bri efs of pro se l i ti ga n ts, arg u m en ts m u st be briefed to be p rese rv ed

. M on tgo m ery ’ s fa i l u re to 7N o. 08- 60716

See FTC v. Assail, I

nc. , 4 1 0F .3 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 7( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 5). 8 See Yohey , 98 5 F .2d at 2 25. 9 5 d e v e l o p t h i s a r g u me n tt h e r e f o r e c o n s t i t u t e s a n a b a n d o n me n to f t h e c l a i m. Fi f t h, M ont gom er y as se r t s t ha t hi s c ons t i t ut i onalr i ghtt o e f fec t i ve
as s i s t anc e o f

c o uns e lw as i nf

r i nge d d ur i ng t he pr o c e e di ngs b e f o r e t he AR B and th e A L J

. T h is cla im fa ils b e c a u s e th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t t o co u n s e l is i n ap pl i cabl e i n civi lcases . 8 F i n al l y, w e need no t add ress w h et h er t h e A R B ’ s deci si on w as sup ported by s ubst ant i alev i denc e. M ont gom er y does notbr i ef t hi s i ss ue, and t hus he has

a b a n d on ed the arg u m en t. 9 * * * Fo rt h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , we AF FI RM t h e j u d g m e n to f t h e ARB

.