Hansen v. Director, O.D.R.C. et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C Smith on 5/21/14. (lvw1)

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

SCOTT KELLY HANSEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:12-cv-773
JUDGE SMITH
Magistrate Judge Deavers

DIRECTOR, O.D.R.C., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On April 24, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be
GRANTED. (Doc. 32). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and
Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff Hansen’s Objections to the
Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 33). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The objections present the same issues presented to and considered by the Magistrate
Judge in the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff initiated this case and objects based on his
claim that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his safety needs. The Magistrate
Judge recognized that Plaintiff has established that he faces a serious risk of harm if he is
returned to prison in Ohio, including that Plaintiff has been placed in the federal witness
protection program. However, the Magistrate Judge concluded, and this Court agrees, that
Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to indicate that Defendants’ current plan of action

is an unreasonable response to the potential threat he faces. (Report and Recommendation at 89). Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ plan of action based on the representation that it may occur at
some point in the future, but not that the ODRC will actually protect Plaintiff from the identified
threats. The Court disagrees. The ODRC represents that they cannot begin the process for
protective control until Plaintiff is in their custody. But once he is, they “will take whatever
steps are prudent to protect him.” (Wittrup Decl. ¶ 8).
For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit and are hereby OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation, Document 32, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED and final judgment shall be
entered in favor of Defendants.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 29 and 32 from the Court’s pending motions list.
The Clerk shall terminate this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2