See CompL, Attach, of Photograph, ECF No. 1 at 19; Photographs, ECF No. 68-13 at 11-14. The action figure is hanging in the air, with the thin white cord or rope extending upwards from the action figure’s chest. See CompL, Attach, of Photograph, ECF No. 1 at 19; Photographs, ECF No. 68-13 at 11-14. Magistrate Judge Harvey got it exactly right when he concluded that the action figure was wrapped in cord or rope “in a manner that is not fairly described as a ‘noose.’ ” R & R, ECF No. 96 at 39. Thus this case is readily distinguished from those where an actual noose or noosé-like object was part of the totality of circumstances that gave rise to' a viable racially hostile work environment claim. See, e.g., Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 614 F.3d 1132, 1137 & n.1, 1141, 1156 (10th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>); Burkes v. Holder, 953 F.Supp.2d 167, 178-79
holding that a court could not agree to impose a sentence within the guidelines but then give a sentence that suspended all but an amount within the guidelines because a reasonable defendant would believe that within the guidelines included suspended time holding jury is sole judge of witness credibility and may believe some witnesses and refuse to believe others holding that a suspended lawyer remains subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court for acts committed while suspended holding that a jury could easily find that the noose was an egregious act of discrimination calculated to intimidate africanamericans holding that a jury could believe that a lifesize noose prominently suspended from a large industrial wall clock was meant to evoke a hangmans noose