Opp. at 52-53.) An opposition to a summary judgment motion is not the place for a plaintiff to raise new claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (listing complaints, answers, and replies to cross-claims as the only forms of pleadings allowed under the rules). Plaintiffs had the opportunity to make a retaliation claim based on their suspensions in their initial complaint and in their amended complaint; they chose not to do so. Accordingly, the Court will not consider that claim at this stage. The substance of the retaliation claim that plaintiffs did make is that SecTek removed Dickerson and Waters from their supervisory positions in retaliation for their complaints about Smith’s alleged discriminatory behavior toward them. See O’Neal v. Ferguson Const. Co., 237 F.3d 1248, 1255 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In order to state a prima facie case,
holding as not protected speech a prison guards internal complaints documenting her superiors failure to respond to inmates sexually explicit behavior toward her holding that  510 applies to unsolicited informal complaints holding without discussion of the verbalwritten distinction that plaintiffs oral complaints were protected activity holding that informal complaints to superiors about discrimination constitute protected activity holding that raising a complaint about a violation of an internal policy is not considered protected activity