As a result, "needing discovery to respond to a motion to dismiss is oxymoronic." Vaughn v. Krehbiel, 367 F. Supp. 2d 1305, 1309-10 (D. Colo. 2005); see also Vaupel v. United States, No. 07-cv-01443-MSK-KLM, 2008 WL 1333111, at *2 n.2 (D. Colo. June 3, 2008) ("[M]otions to dismiss are generally decided on the merits of the complaint, without the benefit of discovery."); Ryskamp v. Looney, No. 10-cv-00842-CMA-KLM, 2010 WL 4256205, at *3-4 (D. Colo. Oct. 21, 2010) (granting a discovery stay and holding that "Plaintiff does not have a right to discovery in order to respond to a motion to dismiss"). ORDER