From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conley v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Oct 21, 2008
Case No. 1:07cv737 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2008)

Summary

dismissing plaintiff's eighth amendment claim for deliberate indifference to safety where defendants sent plaintiff's claims to committee which considered the claim and issued a decision, noting "[w]hile the decision is not the one which Plaintiff prefers, we find no evidence that prison administrators are ignoring his complaints or are being deliberately indifferent to a known risk"

Summary of this case from Heid v. Hooks

Opinion

Case No. 1:07cv737.

October 21, 2008


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on September 30, 2008 (Doc. 24).

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to be correct.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 11) is GRANTED dismissing Count 1 with prejudice and dismissing Count 2 without prejudice. This matter shall proceed before the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Conley v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Oct 21, 2008
Case No. 1:07cv737 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2008)

dismissing plaintiff's eighth amendment claim for deliberate indifference to safety where defendants sent plaintiff's claims to committee which considered the claim and issued a decision, noting "[w]hile the decision is not the one which Plaintiff prefers, we find no evidence that prison administrators are ignoring his complaints or are being deliberately indifferent to a known risk"

Summary of this case from Heid v. Hooks

noting that where prison officials undertake a course of actions to prevent harm to an inmate, they "should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security"

Summary of this case from Heid v. Hooks
Case details for

Conley v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Case Details

Full title:Timothy J. Conley, Plaintiff, v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Oct 21, 2008

Citations

Case No. 1:07cv737 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2008)

Citing Cases

Heid v. Hooks

The Sixth Circuit does not require that "prison officials take every possible step to address a serious risk…

Heid v. Hooks

In this case, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendants' actions taken in response to Plaintiffs'…