Enyart v. Karnes et al

Filing 227

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C Smith on 4/27/15. (lvw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD E. ENYART, JR.,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No.: 2:09-cv-687
JUDGE SMITH
Magistrate Judge King

SHERIFF JIM KARNES, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On February 25, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Defendants Daniel Thacker and Daniel Waldren’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 212) be denied and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc.
221) be denied. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 224). The parties were advised of their
right to object to the Report and Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on
Defendants’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 225).
The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is erroneous
in two respects: (1) that Defendants provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that they are
entitled to qualified immunity; and (2) that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendants acted
with deliberate indifference to his health or safety. (See Defs.’ Objections at 1-2, Doc. 225).
However, both of these issues were previously considered by the Magistrate Judge in the Report

and Recommendation. Defendants have set forth corroborating evidence to testimony previously
submitting and considered by this Court in the previous motion for summary judgment. The
Magistrate Judge acknowledged that “[a]lthough defendants may have pointed to a potential
inconsistency in plaintiff’s allegations and evidence regarding the time of day that plaintiff was
escorted to the fifth floor of FCCCI, the Court finds that plaintiff has nevertheless raised an issue
of fact as to whether the failure to protect him from risk of harm was sufficiently serious.”
(Report and Recommendation at 10). This dispute between the parties is the exact reason why
summary judgment must be denied. As stated in the Report and Recommendation, “[t]his
dispute merely confirms, however, the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact that serves
to preclude summary judgment.” (Id. at 13). Therefore, for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation, this Court finds that Defendants’ objections are without merit.
The Report and Recommendation, Document 224, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions is DENIED.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 212, 221, 224 and 225 from the Court’s pending
motions list. The parties are encouraged to schedule a mediation with this Court. If both parties
agree, they should contact the Magistrate Judge’s chamber to schedule. Additionally, the parties
shall report to the Magistrate Judge’s chambers on or before May 15, 2015, as to whether they
consent to a trial before the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2