facts underlying the two disputes are by no means the same. Finally, finding no merit in Taylor’s remaining arguments, we decline to address them. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. AFFIRMED. 1 . The district court dismissed Taylor's claims— including his § 1983 claims — against CMC, holding that Taylor had failed to plead either a viable claim against CMC as a separate entity or grounds for disregarding CMC’s and New Provo Canyon’s corporate formalities. 2 . 691 F.2d 931 (10th Cir.1982). The district court’s opinion in Milonas, Civil No. C-787-0352, is unpublished. 3 . Id. 4 . Given the nature of the acquisition by CMC and New Provo Canyon of Old Provo Canyon's assets, a serious question exists whe 78-79 (8th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). 11 . United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549,
holding district court could not take judicial notice of finding of another court that use of tear gas was reasonable and necessary recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court  to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings holding district court could not properly take judicial notice of findings of another court establishing nature of salary dispute in question