Kirk Horshaw was an inmate at Menard Correctional Center in Illinois. In 2012, Horshaw was brutally beaten by other inmates acting on the instructions of a gang leader who felt disrespected. Horshaw barely survived and still suffers pain and the effects of brain trauma. Days before the attack, Horshaw received an anonymous letter stating he would be “eradicated” for disrespecting the gang leader. Horshaw gave the letter to Mark Casper, a guard, who promised to investigate. However, Casper did nothing. Horshaw also contends that he sent a note to Michael Atchison, the prison’s warden, describing the threat and asking for protection. Horshaw sued Casper for negligence as well as Atchison under the theory of respondeat superior. Atchison responded that Casper is not liable because the letter did not offer “any context or time frame for [Horshaw’s] alleged action (e.g., who he was accused of disrespecting or when it occurred) or the threat Horshaw received,” and thus Casper was not aware of an objectively serious threat. Because Casper is not liable, Atchison argued, he cannot be liable under respondeat superior. Do you think Horshaw has a good argument? How did the court rule?