Opinion ID: 2770839
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tsegaye Wolde

Text: Wolde served as the ORR Project Officer and was based in Washington, D.C. Among the three defendants, Wolde had the fewest direct interactions with the facility. Nonetheless, Chester had numerous contacts with Wolde, so he was kept informed. Because we conclude that Gonzalez and De La Cruz lacked subjective awareness and because there is no indication that Wolde was aware of any additional facts, it is unnecessary to examine his awareness or response in detail. Like the other two defendants, Wolde was not subjectively aware of a substantial risk of harm. Further, his response was not unreasonable. Thus, he is entitled to qualified immunity. B. Reasonable Inferences in Favor of the Plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claim that the district court erred by failing to draw all reasonable inferences in their favor. We have already determined that the plaintiffs have failed to show either a subjective awareness of danger or that the defendants failed to respond reasonably. Addressing this additional issue would not affect the outcome of the case and is therefore unnecessary. Plaintiffs failed to offer evidence to create a dispute of material fact that the defendants had actual awareness of a substantial risk of harm or that the risk was obvious. The plaintiffs have also failed to show that the defendants responded unreasonably. AFFIRMED. 18