star but what i have difficulty seeing is deliberate indifference because negligence isn't good enough in this context and it seemed doing very well and so it was definitely negligent but where's the deliberate indifference in permitting her to escape to her fate except for its tragic end was very well on notice that ms nerving was at high risk for leaving one despite the claims that she was getting better if you actually looked at the record increasingly in the weeks leading up to the incident there were testimony he added you were required to go up an elevator walk down one hundred and twenty dollars foot straight hallway to get to the reception room and then he took her to the bathroom and then he said he was watching her the whole time on the phone in that brief nd he put on the phone and look he later did it and put eyes on her once he was able to get downstairs that's a credibility determination it's my opinion that he never laid eyes on her because the amount of minutes he would take for her to do that means that he was likely taking that phone call and had to be interred and left her monitored for somebody that he went down i thought he got downstairs to the building was able to steer her and call out to her to to stay he stood at some time several minutes after wandering around he spotted her he walked with a limp in that he was not at castle none of that contradicts that he could have seen him because there's no we don't know what she was doing when she got downstairs she put her state in the same place for five minutes till he got downstairs so i don't understand how any of that contradicts his statement that you saw her to be an example pax romana whether he did you know i don't think it is because it took him forty minutes to even go back and report it in with that's the justice that that none of that happened he wandered around for forty minutes the district court said it's fifteen or twenty but he allegedly makes this phone call at one fifty pm a phone call goes out to the deputies out to thirty one pm which is forty one minutes and they destroyed the record of that phone call so we really don't know even if he had been wandering around for an hour or two hours the jury could conclude based off of his testimony that you would hear one hundred dollars around for forty minutes an call the jury based off of the several different points of where he lied back then there is not responsive to my question you don't have to answer that but my question is whether there is any evidence that directly contradicts his quite different is there anything similar in terms of you know keeping an eye on someone who's not a prison setting or someone running away in that to me those situations are where someone is placed in a in a setting where another person is going to hurt them we don't know that any other person hurt the deceased in this pro clue or a denial of qualified immunity when there's a significant principles or elements of the claim that would have let the person know that they shouldn't be doing that infers this in this case there is a long line of case law that says that  when considered in the light most favorable to apologise the facts including how long mr terry turned around to pass the phone back through the window slot and all of the other facts demonstrate that mr cherry was not deliberately indifferent there are three groups of facts that demonstrate this st the district court was correct in finding that there are no facts giving terr supplemental excerpt of record one of four and this not at issue a wall classification here was the lowest of six possible ratings that the caregivers ha minimal low moderate high and extreme and she had a low so this was a specific evaluation with regard to this particular client's propensity for a while intelligent and informed informational questions the client was impressive during the employment supplemental excerpt of record one home mr cherry has a bachelor of science in psychology and there was one particular client who went out in the community attempted to a walk by telling him he wasn't going to go back when he saw some friends of mr cherry was able to successfully skills that he was caught return him to the was found by the district war and is supported and the records are not related to a wall and as a matter of fact with regards to the rating of a wall as being not an issue that i just mentioned before  that same form of all that there are five indifference for safety none of those conditions of safety were concerns for it seems and on this st page of that document same document i mention it also includes these same symptoms scenes and his note from the session moments before they go out on the the staff accompanied visit is that she was actively she actively participated and that that was typical the nurse on duty there it was mr terry's practiced to take his phone with him when he would go out and leave the unit but that morning he didn't check to see that he had his phone excerpt the record for eight sat down in the waiting room and he recounted how they were watching jerry springer on t v and they were commenting on how crazy it was then to see them request to go to the bet so mr terry scored her outside of the waiting room into the hallway to the bathroom waited for her to finish and then discord her back and they sat down in the waiting room without incident no indication that she was unhappy disturbed acting anyway in differently and she had been before back into the district court was correct in finding that appellant did not show that terry acted unreasonably when he got a phone call he went up to the glass and he turned around and watched you see him during the call during the call terry testify that she was in his direct line of sight for the entire call she remained in c t except and there is no indication that it was even when stand up let alone run away excerpt of record for th and thirty six after the short call terry turned his back to return the phone back into the slot is testimony is that it was for one second and when he turned back to seed and was gone now mr terry ran out into the hallway and there was some mention here by counsel that it was a straight hallway but that's not the case because kerry didn't see her so the st thing he did was he looked in the bathroom where he has just taken her before reasonable she had been there before maybe she went back to the bathroom he was not expecting her to able it was not indicated he went to the bathroom checked she was not there he went back out into the hallway tara testified specifically the entire hallway was not straight he said quote you have to go down and you go around some stuff you can't see the others there's another set of elevators and it's not hole it's not a hole straight wall it's like offices or something here that obscures the vision so you have to make a right as it excerpt the record for four or five through four  carry took that elevator down into the lobby he got down there he looked left he looked right he didn't see her so he went outside of the building into the parking lot he testified that he speak walked and he walked very quickly he went down the driveway to rd street didn't see her so then he looked down the trail and he jawed down there he testified specifically that his came was in his hand quote support that the district court's determination that the testimony was not only credible a logical also shows that that's not the case that casts credibility credibility is is ordinarily testified from the time in the waiting room when he turned back from passing the phone and saw that the cd was gone until the time that he saw her at the bus stop and nd street ten minutes had passed and that excerpt the record record is absolutely consistent and as a matter of fact it's very reliable because there are four different sources here at least two to three different sources here get cherrie's testimony we have dr dies or is note in the the facts here demonstrate that and carry mumps even when they're taking in the light most favorable to a health perhaps there's justice breyer mentioned there's negligence perhaps but as the district court f evidence on the record in order to come weigh this evidence in disk in in in come to a decision as to whether or not mr terry was was being truthful also as you heard counsel say he her her next step is being back into the public they were trying to find her another mental health offical that it wasn't locked down to transition or to because she was still schizophrenia and suffering from the same problem she did before and inherit medical illness and the case just argued is submitted and we very much appreciate the helpful arguments from both counsel thank you