District Court, D. New Mexico, 2026

Stephen Hardin v. New Mexico Christian Children’s Home

Stephen Hardin v. New Mexico Christian Children’s Home
District Court, D. New Mexico · Decided September 11, 2026
Stephen Hardin v. New Mexico Christian Children’s Home

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO STEPHEN HARDIN, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:25-cv-00940-DHU-GJF NEW MEXICO CHRISTIAN CHILDREN’S HOME, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION THIS MATTER is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Fouratt’s August 26, 2026 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”), which recommended that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Remedies and Failure to State a Claim be granted in part and denied in part. Dkt. No. 34. The PFRD notified the parties of their ability to file objections within fourteen (14) days. Having reviewed the PFRD and noting that the parties have filed no objections to it, the Court concurs with the PFRD.1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) the PFRD (Dkt. No. 34) is ADOPTED; (2) Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Remedies and Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Counts V (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Faith Dealing), VI “A party’s objections to [a PFRD] must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The parties’ failure to timely object to the PFRD thus waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. In re Key Energy Res. Inc., 230 F.3d 1197, 1199–1200 (10th Cir. 2000); One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1059. (Negligent Retention and Supervision), and VIII (insofar as it asserts a claim for Breach of Contract) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with leave to amend; b. Count IX (Pattern and Practice of Retaliation) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and c. the Motion is otherwise DENIED. (3) Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the filing of this Opinion to file a Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HONORABLE DAVID HERRERA URIAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.