will move to the last case of the day homer versus france we know whether those were honored in the transfer to the inner city act your honor i'm not sure that's in the record and so we're looking at that for what tells the defendant that of mr connors constitution claim and objective very serious medical condition and then a subject of deliberate indifference i'm going to begin with the dispositive subjective component of his claim i was planning on doing so but also because  lot spent most of his time on that portion of the claims with respect to the deliberate indifference claim according to this court's decision of petit carter a plaintiff must provide evidence that an official actually knew of and disregarded yes well any inconsistency or any conflicting testimony in this regard or with regard to the idea o c r policies or procedures those cannot be attributable to nurse france here we have the glisten versus indiana department of corrections case that i mean a support corporate entity may be liable even if none of its individual officers deprive the plaintiff of a constitutional right so long as the institutional policies themselves give rise to  shiny so that's why he wrote at the bottom of the form see above by the nurse francis doesn't have the ability there at statesville then to issue the low bank permit but again well th medications or treatments or special provisions for prisoners for medical reasons it can be an eighth amendment violation for others to refuse to comply with those it this is different because and those types of situations involving the medications and vegetable that is treating the prisoner has the authority at that time to  what the prisoners ask him to if it's a doctor or it's a nurse there and the health care unit at that point and that health care nurse and the health care unit is able to either prescribe medicine or to have a doctor there get medicines that are necessary to treat the prisoner nurse trance here is an intake nurse and as the intake nurse he has a limited set of responsibilit was confusing and many aspects was not confusing on whether or not he had the thirty to issue a medical permit here she was very clear and well as mr garcia's testimony because it's a st i think it might have been i don't know if it starts when ninety one page two through seven or doc one seventy seven twelve thirteen i had it in my brief that when she was last asked later to clarify or testimony about what the screen nurse could do  she testified that they could only take steps to have the appropriate medical personnel issue the state's permit and light of the entirety i don't think it's ambiguous i think when you read her testimony and its entirety what's important here is whether or not he had the r d to issue the medical permit and under the state license  doing nothing mr palmer understood it to mean and what he pursued was then to go through the ordinary so called process to have the appointment with the doctor and order to get the permit issued there at states now i understand it was mr palmer's state the miller case they rejected that argument and said that it is supposes that every federal employee is responsible on paper and image for not implementing the decision of any other federal employee all the plaintiff ne we're looking at a subjective standard here and nurse trots testified that it was his belief that he didn't have the authority to issue the medical permit even if  representation of your client as well and the court will be in re