For the first time he asserted a claim against Wexford Corporation, alleging that it did not provide him with adequate care following his injury in the kitchen. He also alleged more generally that it failed to conduct inmate-intake and infections-disease examinations and ran a below-standard hepatitis C Clinic. II. DISTRICT COURT DISPOSITION The district court disposed of the relevant claims in two very thorough orders. We summarize them here. The first order, Lymon v. Aramark Corp., 728 F.Supp.2d 1222 (D.N.M.2010), painstakingly parsed through the various y for certain torts committed by “law enforcement officers,” does not apply to corrections officers. Lymon, 728 F.Supp.2d at 1268-70 (relying primarily on Callaway v. N.M. Dep’t of Corr., 117 N.M. 637, 875 P.2d 393 (N.M.App.1994) (<HOLDING>)). Counts III and IV assert tort claims against
holding that police officers were not entitled to immunity under the itca law enforcement immunity provision where the officers violated their statutory duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all individuals while acting within the scope of their employment holding that directors and officers are fiduciaries holding that the secretary of corrections is not a law enforcement officer under the tca holding that law enforcement officers first amendment interest is entitled to even greater weight where officers  reports exposed possible government corruption holding corrections officers are not law enforcement officers under  41412