Opinion ID: 2644933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Post-Hearing Motion

Text: For his thirteenth issue, Onysko points to a post-hearing motion to supplement the record with a letter he authored and in which he noted a third potential hazard at Slate Canyon. DEQ explained the contents of the letter in its opposition to the motion: “The third issue [Onysko] claims to have raised [in the letter] is the lack of fencing around the spring collection areas.” Id. at 2823. The ALJ denied the motion because the letter was known to Onysko at the time of the hearing and he failed to introduce it. Onysko never explains why the ALJ’s ruling was incorrect. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9) (requiring supporting reasons). Instead, he asserts that if the ALJ had granted the motion, he would have been able to “prov[e] yet another instance of DEQ shifting its (pretextual) explanations for [his] demotion and negative Performance Evaluation.” Pet’r Opening Br. at 80. But Onysko’s failure to develop any argument means that he has waived the issue. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that a party, including a pro se litigant, waives an inadequately briefed issue). - 13 -