UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

DAYMOND HAYWOOD, 

 Case No. 1:18-cv-361 

 Plaintiff, 

McFarland, J. 

Bowman, M.J. 

v. 

 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FRI, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

On May 24, 2018, Plaintiff, currently an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional 

Facility, initiated this action, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by prison 

officials. On December 16, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (doc. 

36). This motion, if granted, would be dispositive of all of Plaintiff’s claims against the 

Defendants. Plaintiff failed to file any timely response. 

Thereafter, on January 23, 2020, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to “show cause” 

on or before February 18, 2020 why the Defendants' motion for summary judgment should 

not be construed as unopposed and granted for the reasons stated. (Doc. 39). Plaintiff 

did not timely comply with the Courts’ Order and has not filed any response to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s most recent “show cause” order. The 

Defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment has now been pending for six 

months. The undersigned has reviewed that motion and finds it well-reasoned and wellsupported. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00361-MWM-SKB Doc #: 41 Filed: 05/19/20 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 301
Based upon the grounds advocated by the Defendants, they are entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law because: (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available 

administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”); 

(2) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably under 

the circumstances; and (3) Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that his constitutional 

rights were violated. Defendants persuasively argue that Plaintiff has failed to show the 

existence of any genuine issue of material fact to support any of the elements of his failure 

to protect claim under the Eight Amendment, and that they are each entitled to qualified 

immunity in their respective individual capacities. 

Last but not least, this case should be dismissed based upon Plaintiff’s failure to 

file any timely response to the Court’s “show cause” order, which amounts to a failure to 

prosecute. Plaintiff was explicitly warned in the Court’s last order that a failure to respond 

“will result” in the recommendation that the Defendants' motion be granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Defendants' motion for summary 

judgment (Doc. 36) be GRANTED for the reasons stated and alternatively, that judgment 

be entered in Defendants' favor with prejudice based upon Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, 

and that this case be CLOSED.1

 s/Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

1 Also before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Consistent with this 

Report and Recommendation Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc.40) should be DENIED as MOOT.

Case: 1:18-cv-00361-MWM-SKB Doc #: 41 Filed: 05/19/20 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 302
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

DAYMOND HAYWOOD, 

 Case No. 1:18-cv-361 

 Plaintiff, 

McFarland, J. 

Bowman, M.J. 

v. 

 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FRI, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

NOTICE

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after 

being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on 

timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the 

portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in 

support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within 

FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make 

objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas 

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

 

Case: 1:18-cv-00361-MWM-SKB Doc #: 41 Filed: 05/19/20 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 303