Salim v. AUSA_SDNY Office

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case No. 1:22-cv-03374-CNS-STV Document 194 _ filed 03/12/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-03374-CNS-STV
MAMDOUH SALIM,
Plaintiff,

V.

AUSA_SDNY OFFICE and
ADX WARDEN,

Defendants.

ORDER

On February 11, 2025, the Court affirmed and adopted United States Magistrate
Judge Scott T. Varholak’s Recommendation, ECF No. 175, to deny Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 188 (order affirming
Recommendation and denying ECF Nos. 140, 160).

In his thorough Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Varholak first determined that
supplementation or amendment of Plaintiff's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
claim is unnecessary at this stage. ECF No. 175 at 5-7. Next, Magistrate Judge Varholak
determined that Plaintiff provided no reasonable explanation for his delay in moving to
add two new claims under the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses. /d. at 8-11. He
noted that this case had been pending for two years before Plaintiff filed his motions, and

despite being aware of the underlying facts and the specific theories of liability he sought

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

2
to add for over two years, Plaintiff provided no explanation for the delay or for his failure
to include them in his original complaint. Id. (citing Las Vegas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v.
Far W. Bank, 893 F.2d 1182, 1185 (10th Cir. 1990) (“Where the party seeking amendment
knows or should have known of the facts upon which the proposed amendment is based
but fails to include them in the original complaint, the motion to amend is subject to denial.”
(internal citation and quotation omitted))). Finally, Magistrate Judge Varholak determined
that Plaintiff’s proposed new claims would be futile. Id. at 11–16. He explained that the
Due Process claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Id. at 13–16. And he determined
that the Ex Post Facto Clause claim fails because Plaintiff cannot state a claim that the
Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Id. at 12–13.
After affirming the Recommendation, the Court received Plaintiff’s objection to the
Recommendation. ECF No. 189. Plaintiff does not contest the denial of his motion to
supplement, but he argues that Magistrate Judge Varholak erred in denying his motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint. See ECF No. 189 (summarizing objection
to ECF No. 160 but “agree[ing] with (R175) in denying [#140]”). Moreover, on March 7,
2025, the Court received a new motion from Plaintiff seeking to reconsider its order
affirming Magistrate Judge Varholak’s Recommendation. ECF No. 193.
The Court has thoroughly considered the arguments raised by Plaintiff in his
objection and motion to reconsider. He first argues that additional RFRA allegations are
necessary. ECF No. 189 at 3. He then argues that granting leave to amend would cause
neither undue delay nor prejudice to Defendants. Id. at 6. Finally, he argues that his two
new claims are not futile. Id. at 11. In short, Plaintiff essentially disagrees with Magistrate
Case No. 1:22-cv-03374-CNS-STV Document 194 filed 03/12/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

Case No. 1:22-cv-03374-CNS-STV Document 194 _ filed 03/12/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3

Judge Varholak’s findings. Such arguments “do not render th[e] recommendation
incorrect.” Vista Partners, Inc. v. Brainscope Co., Inc., No. 19-CV-00138-CMA-SKC, 2019
WL 3543625, at *4 (D. Colo. Aug. 5, 2019) (overruling the plaintiffs objection after
determining that the objection “boils down to ‘mere disagreement’ with the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation” (quoting Rader v. United States, No. CIVAO8CV00568-
WDMMEH, 2008 WL 4949168, at *3 (D. Colo. Nov. 17, 2008)).

Upon de novo review of the Recommendation, the Court again finds that it is sound
and correct, and that reconsideration of its order is unwarranted. For the reasons stated
by Magistrate Judge Varholak in his Recommendation, the Court finds that (1)
supplementation of Plaintiffs RFRA claim is unnecessary, (2) Plaintiff provided no
reasonable explanation for his delay in moving to add two new claims, and (3) Plaintiff's
proposed new claims would be futile.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objection and DENIES Plaintiffs
motion to reconsider. ECF Nos. 190, 193.

DATED this 12th day of March 2025.

BY THE COURT:

Un