Opinion ID: 2736424
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to Release Records

Text: In the amended complaint, Mr. Benton complains about an inability to obtain his records from some of the defendants. Third Am. Compl. at 3, 27-28. 6 The district court apparently realized that Mr. Benton might have intended to assert a state-law claim of defamation. See Order of Dismissal at 8, Benton v. Town of South Fork, 1:3-cv-02668-LTB (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2014), ECF 15 (noting an allegation of libel and slander, adding that “[i]t is not clear whether Plaintiff asserts these claims pursuant to state law only”). 13 Mr. Benton does not identify a cause of action; but because he is pro se, we liberally construe the amended complaint to discern a relevant legal theory. The only conceivable theory involves a violation of the Colorado Open Records Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-206. This theory was not acknowledged by the district court. But the omission was not prejudicial, for no private right of action exists under the Colorado Open Records Act. McDonald v. Miller, 945 F. Supp. 2d 1201, 1205 (D. Colo. 2013). As a result, we cannot fault the district court for failing to consider a meritless claim under the Act.