that everything seized from Lorna Doone’s was logged in. Plaintiff came forward with nothing other than her bald assertion to indicate that Defendants ever took possession of her per sonal property. Consequently, summary judgment on this claim was appropriate. 4. Negligent Hiring, Training, and Retention {31} Plaintiff asserts that it was the Department of Public Safety’s negligent hiring, training, and retention that led its agents and officers to commit torts against her. In the district court, Defendants made purely a legal argument in favor of dismissing this claim. Defendants argued that the negligent hiring and retention could not proceed because there was no predicate tort to support the claim. Ortiz v. N.M. State Police, 112 N.M. 249, 251, 814 P.2d 117, 119 (Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>). The record reveals no factual development on
recognizing negligent procurement to be a negligence cause of action recognizing torts of negligent hiring supervision and retention holding that a cause of action or negligent hiring training and retention can proceed only if the alleged negligence leads to the commission of one of the torts enumerated in the tort claims act holding that for a plaintiff to recover on claim of negligent hiring the negligent hiring of the employee must have been the proximate cause of the injury at issue recognizing as viable actions in tort negligent hiring and negligent retention