He stresses, in particular, Mr. Sherman’s failure to communicate with the District Attorney’s office, or even the court, as such communications seemed to fall within his job responsibility as caseworker. See Aplt’s App. vol. II, doc. 10, at 000473 (Mr. Sisneros’s deposition testimony) (“It’s just a multiquasi-type [sic], counselor-type individual that would hand problems and facilitate communication or items for that inmate to the courts, to the DA, public defender, on and on.”) This argument is, in effect, that the BCDC Appellees should have conducted an investigation based on Mr. Reed’s requests, but, as we have already established, such action is not required of the BCDC Appellees by either the Constitution or statute, at least within this time frame. See Thompson, 882 F.2d at 1186 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the BCDC Appellees cannot be held
holding that the duty to investigate applied to a specific murder suspect holding there is no ongoing duty to investigate before raising the credit limit if the debtor has a good payment history holding that jailers had no independent duty to investigate holding that officers owe a duty to the public to detect and investigate crime but owe no duty to individuals for negligent investigation holding that an employer through its employees did not breach an independent duty to power company not to come in contact with power companys transmission lines because such a duty is a general duty not an independent one