Chevron Corporation v. Salazar
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Under FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2), this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 5/1/2014. (klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02426-REB-MEH
MARIA AGUINDA SALAZAR,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the court on the Status Report of Douglas Beltman,
Appearing Pro Se, per Court Order of 4/23/14 [#20]1 filed April 30, 2014. Based on
the information provided by the movant, Douglas Beltman, I enter this order of
This case was initiated when Mr. Beltman filed his Non-Party Beltman’s Motion
for Protective Order [#1] on September 14, 2011. Mr. Beltman sought an order
quashing a deposition subpoena which had been served on him in the underlying
lawsuit. On September 30, 2011, the court entered an order [#16] denying without
prejudice the motion for protective order because the underlying lawsuit had been
“[#20]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
stayed. This case then was inactive for more than two years.
In the status report [#20], Mr. Beltman states that the claims against him in the
underlying lawsuit have been dismissed with prejudice. Further, he states that the
“deposition subpoena in the underlying New York case is now moot, and I will not again
be seeking a protective order to quash it.” Status report [#20], ¶ 4. Mr. Beltman
represents that he is not opposed to the dismissal of this case. Id.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2), this case is DISMISSED with prejudice;
2. That the parties shall bear their own fees and costs.
Dated May 1, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?