ORDER

MAURICE M. PAUL, Senior District Judge.

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated December 6, 2013. (Doc. 92). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo of the file, including the objections filed by plaintiff, Doc. 96, and have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that even under the version of the facts construed most favorably to the plaintiff, the two guards in the cafeteria had no reason to suspect the attacker would harm the plaintiff until the moment of the attack. Also, the Court agrees that Sgt. Sinclair acted reasonably and pursuant to policy in maintaining control over the other prisoners and signaling control instead of physically intervening in the attack. Finally, even if Sgt. Simmons only issued verbal commands during the attack, the Court agrees with the cases cited by the Magistrate Judge from the Sixth, Fourth and Tenth Circuits stating that, "prison guards have no constitutional duty to intervene in an armed assault by an inmate when the intervention would place the guard in danger of physical harm " Patmon v. Parker, 3 Fed. Appx. 337, 338 (6th Cir. 2001). Even under the plaintiff's version of the events, the only way Sgt. Simmons could have intervened more extensively than he did would be to place himself in danger of physical harm.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

DONE AND ORDERED.