<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/xsl/rss2.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Baltierra v. Adams County, Colorado et al :: Justia Dockets &amp; Filings</title>
        <link>https://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2018cv00664/178565</link>
        <atom:link href="https://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2018cv00664/178565/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 13:41:12 -0700</pubDate>
        <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 13:41:12 -0700</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Justia Dockets &amp; Filings</generator>
        <copyright>Copyright 2026 Justia Inc</copyright>
        <description>Baltierra v. Adams County, Colorado et al - Case Documents</description>
             
                        <item>
        <title>
                            <![CDATA[Document 60]]>
                    </title>
                    <link>
                https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2018cv00664/178565/60
            </link>
                <description>
            <![CDATA[
                ORDER DISMISSING CASE, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 5/13/19. (pglov)
            ]]>
        </description>
                    <guid>
                https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2018cv00664/178565/60
            </guid>
                <pubDate>
            Mon, 13 May 2019 00:00:00 -0700
        </pubDate>
    </item>
                        <item>
        <title>
                            <![CDATA[Document 59]]>
                    </title>
                    <link>
                https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2018cv00664/178565/59
            </link>
                <description>
            <![CDATA[
                ORDER that the County Defendants&#039; Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 39 ) is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Corizon Defendants&#039; Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 40 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff&#039;s Fourth Claim for Relief remains pending because the Corizon Defendants&#039; Motion did not apply to that claim. It is FURTHER ORDERED that because Defendants have not argued that Plaintiff&#039;s claims should be dismissed with prejudice and because it is not immediately apparent that any amen dment would be futile, see Anderson v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 521 F.3d 1278, 1288 (10th Cir. 2008), Plaintiff&#039;s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up to and including Apr il 22, 2019, to file an Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies noted in this Order. If Plaintiff does not file an amended pleading, Plaintiff&#039;s First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief will be dismissed with prejudice, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 3/25/2019. (evana, )
            ]]>
        </description>
                    <guid>
                https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2018cv00664/178565/59
            </guid>
                <pubDate>
            Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:00:00 -0700
        </pubDate>
    </item>
                </channel>
</rss>
