IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney

Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00406-CNS-STV

ABDU-LATIF KAZEMBE ABU-NANTAMBU-EL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEAN WILLIAMS, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, LONG, Warden, Sterling Correctional Facility, individually and in his official capacity, DORSEY, Major, FNU, Sterling Correctional Facility, BARNES, Captain, FNU, Sterling Correctional Facility, UNKNOWN HOUSING CAPTAIN, Units 3 and 4, Sterling Correctional Facility, PEIL, Lt., Investigator for Sterling Correctional Facility, FNU, CUSTER, Housing Lt. for Unit 4, Sterling Correctional Facility, FNU, COONROD-BROWN, Case Manager, Sterling Correctional Facility, FNU, BEDSAUL, Housing Sgt. For Unit 4, Sterling Correctional Facility, FNU, WALTER, Housing CO for Unit 4, Sterling Correctional Facility, UNKNOWN OFFICER, Housing CO for Unit 4, Sterling Correctional Facility, FNU, REINHART, Medical Doctor and Provider, Sterling Correctional Facility, FNU, UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, present in Unit 4 on February 11, 2020, UNKNOWN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR, Sterling Correctional Facility, and DICK, Case Manager II, FNU, Sterling Correctional Facility,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Varholak issued on April 6, 2023 (ECF No. 77). For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation. The parties were advised that they had fourteen days, after being served with a copy of the Recommendation, to file written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge assigned to the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Varholak’s Recommendation. Under

(b)(1)(B), this Court may designate a Magistrate Judge to consider dispositive motions and submit recommendations to the Court. When a Magistrate Judge submits a Recommendation, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s failure to file such written objections may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). When this occurs, the Court is “accorded considerable discretion” and “may review a [Magistrate Judge]’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah,

(10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas,

). After reviewing all the relevant pleadings, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Varholak’s analysis was thorough and comprehensive, the Recommendation is well-reasoned, and the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Varholak’s Recommendation (ECF No. 77) as an Order of this Court. Defendants Long, Dorcey, Barnes, Piel, Custer, Dick, Bedsaul, and Coonrod-Brown’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (ECF No. 48).

The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims (arising under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments) relating to Defendants Long, Dorcey, Barnes, Piel, Custer, Dick, Bedsaul, and Coonrod-Brown’s failure to protect Plaintiff from the alleged assault by Mr. Cummings, and DENIED to the extent that it seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim relating to Defendant Custer’s deliberate indifference towards Plaintiff’s medical needs. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in all other respects. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; his First Amendment Retaliation claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; his §§ 1985 and 1986 claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; any claims—with the exception of the deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Custer discussed above—asserting liability against Defendants Long, Dorcey, Barnes, Custer, Piel, Dick, Bedsaul, and Coonrod-Brown based on supervisory actions or policy enforcement are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and any claim arising out of Plaintiff’s incident with Mr. White is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED this 17th day of May 2023.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________________ Charlotte N. Sweeney United States District Judge