69cv07941 BB.
June 4, 2010
BRUCE BLACK, District Judge
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the following pro se Motions:Doc. No. Filed Date Party Subfile No. (See (See (See
The pro se Motions refer to previously filed Objections to the Special Master's Report (Doc. No. 9546, filed December 16, 2009) but do not identify the relevant subfile numbers. The documents cited after the subfile numbers are the previously filed Objections which identify the relevant subfile numbers.
9704 May 4, 2010 Ray R. Velarde 255, 259 Doc. No. 9622) 9705 May 4, 2010 Ron Velarde 257, 260 Doc. No. 9658) 9719 May 21, 2010 Tammy Griffith 254 Doc. No. 9643). The content of the pro se motions now before the Court is identical to that of several other pro se motions that the Court has previously construed as objections to the Special Master's Report on Priorities for Three Acequias (Doc. No. 9546, filed December 16, 2009). (See Mem. Op. and Order at 4, Doc. No. 9720, filed May 21, 2010). The Court has ruled that it would limit its consideration of objections to the Special Master's Report to those filed by persons that timely objected to the Notices and Orders to Show Cause or their successors-in-interest. (See Mem. Op. and Order at 3-4, Doc. No. 9700, filed April 28, 2010) (listing the parties, along with their respective subfile numbers, that filed timely objections to the Notices and Orders to Show Cause)). The Court will DENY the Motions now before the Court because there were no timely objections to the Notices and Orders to Show Cause for their respective subfiles. (See Mem. Op. and Order at 4-5, Doc. No. 9720, filed May 21, 2010) (ruling on several other pro se motions which are identical to those now before the Court.).
IT IS SO ORDERED.