Hester v. Lea County Correctional Facility (GEO Group) Staff et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WESLEY DEAN HESTER,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2:23-cv-00516 DHU-LF
LEA COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
(GEO GROUP) STAFF; NEW MEXICO
CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT; WEXFORD
HEALTH SERVICES AND STAFF THEREOF,
Defendants.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
This matter comes before the Court following the expiration of the thirty-day Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) periods pertaining to summary judgment in favor of the GEO
Defendants1 and Wexford Defendants.2 See Docs. 137, 138. Plaintiff Wesley Hester filed a letter
with the Court (Doc. 139), but this letter did not contain any additional evidence as required to
establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding any Rule 56(f) issues. Accordingly, I
recommend that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of the GEO Defendants and the
Wexford Defendants on all remaining claims.
The New Mexico Corrections Department (“NMCD”) joined in the GEO Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. Doc. 59. Because all claims against NMCD require underlying
acts of wrongdoing by other defendants, and because I recommend granting summary judgment
1 These defendants are The GEO Group, Inc.; Officer Keagen Pollard; Mental Health Director
Stacey Massengill-Munroe; Captain Rick Condarco; Case Manager Rachel Gomez; Dwayne
Santistevan; Moriama Valeriano; and defendants Alderete and Smith, whose first names were
not listed in the complaint.
2 These defendants are Wexford Health Services and Nurse Aiste Chamblin.
Case 2:23-cv-00516-DHU-LF Document 140 Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 2

2
in favor of all other defendants on all claims, I also recommend summary judgment in favor of
NMCD on all claims against it.
THE PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of a copy of
these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written objections
with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Written objections
must be both timely and specific. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., With Buildings,
Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, Known as: 2121 E. 30th St., Tulsa, Oklahoma, 73
F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). A party must file any objections with the Clerk of the
District Court within the fourteen-day period if that party wants to have appellate review
of the proposed findings and recommended disposition. Failure to file timely and specific
objections will result in waiver of de novo review by a district or appellate court. Id. In
other words, if no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.
____________________________________
LAURA FASHING
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-00516-DHU-LF Document 140 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 2