Lowe v. Bernalillo County et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MATTHEW LOWE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:23-cv-00160-MIS-JFR
BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS and
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO OMNIBUS ORDER AND DISMISSAL OF CASE
AND INCORPORATED MOTION TO ALTER THE COURT’S JUDGMENT, AND
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND
DEADLINE TO FILE OBJECTIONS AND APPEAL INFORMATION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Matthew Lowe’s (1) Objections to
Omnibus Order and Dismissal of Case, which incorporates a Motion to Alter the Court’s Judgment
under Rule 59(e) (“Motion for Reconsideration”), ECF No. 74, and (2) Motion to Extend Deadline
to File Objections and Appeal Information (“Motion to Extend”), ECF No. 75, filed November 6,
2025. For the reasons that follow, the Court will DENY the Motion for Reconsideration and
GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART the Motion to Extend.
I. Motion for Reconsideration
First, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s October 10, 2025 Omnibus Order
Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, Granting
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, Denying all Other Pending Motions as Moot, and
Closing the Case (“Omnibus Order”), ECF No. 72. See Mot. for Reconsid. at 2. As relevant here,
the Omnibus Order struck as untimely and procedurally improper Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law
in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (“Memorandum of Law”), ECF No.
Case 1:23-cv-00160-MIS-JFR Document 76 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 4

2
67, and Supplement thereto (“Supplement”), ECF No. 68, because they were filed after the
magistrate judge issued the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on Defendants’
Motions for Summary Judgment (“PFRD”), ECF No. 55.1 Omnibus Order at 4-5. The Court also
found that it could not construe the Memorandum of Law and Supplement as objections to the
PFRD because they did “not specifically object to any of [the magistrate judge’s] findings or
conclusions; in fact, they do not even mention the PFRD.” Id. at 5.
“A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment should be granted only to correct
manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d
1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Rule 59(e) motions may be
granted when ‘the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.’”
Nelson v. City of Albuquerque, 921 F.3d 925, 929 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Servants of the
Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)).
Here, Plaintiff merely “re-submit[s]” his Memorandum of Law and Supplement and asks
the Court to consider the arguments made therein. Mot. for Reconsid. at 2. Initially, the Court
finds no basis for vacating the part of the Omnibus Order striking the Memorandum of Law as
untimely and procedurally improper, ECF No. 72 at 4-5; and the Court hereby adopts its prior
findings in that regard. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the Memorandum of Law and is not
persuaded that the Court committed a manifest error of law, misapprehended the facts,
misapprehended a party’s position, or misapprehended the controlling law. And it does not present
newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.
1 Plaintiff also filed a timely Response to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, see ECF No.
47, which the magistrate judge considered when preparing the PFRD, see ECF No. 55 at 3.
Case 1:23-cv-00160-MIS-JFR Document 76 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 4

3
II. Motion to Extend
Second, Plaintiff moves the Court to extend the deadline “to file objections and appeal[.]”
Mot. to Extend at 1. To the extent he requests an extension to file objections to the PFRD, the
request is DENIED. The Court previously granted Plaintiff a sixty-day extension of the original
deadline to file objections to the PFRD. See ECF No. 58. Within that timeframe, Plaintiff filed,
inter alia, the Memorandum of Law, ECF No. 67, Supplement, ECF No. 68, and Objections to
Defendants’ Responses to the Memorandum of Law, ECF No. 71. Briefing is complete, Plaintiff’s
claims have been resolved, and the case is closed. See Omnibus Order at 6. No more extensions
are warranted.
To the extent that Plaintiff requests an extension of the deadline to appeal, the request is
GRANTED. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal “must be
filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.”
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The Court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal by “30 days
after the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered,
whichever is later.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).
Although the Omnibus Order disposed of all of Plaintiff’s claims, due to an oversight, the
Court never entered a separate “final judgment” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a).
The Court will remedy that oversight and enter a separate final judgment contemporaneously
herewith. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff has 30 days from
the date the final judgment is entered to file a notice of appeal. Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5), the Court
may extend that deadline by up to 30 days. The Court will grant the maximum thirty-day extension
and, as such, Plaintiff shall have 60 days from the date final judgment is entered to file his notice
of appeal.
Case 1:23-cv-00160-MIS-JFR Document 76 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 4

4
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Objections to Omnibus Order and Dismissal of Case and Motion to Alter
the Court’s Judgment under Rule 59(e), ECF No. 74, is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline to File Objections and Appeal Information,
ECF No. 75, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART consistent with
this Order; and
3. Plaintiff shall have 60 days from the date the Court enters its separate Final
Judgment to file a notice of appeal with the district court clerk.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00160-MIS-JFR Document 76 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 4