rule in part is not cited any cases that would place the defendant's conduct beyond debate which is the relevant standard moreover the record shows that the defendant's conduct was objective we reasonable our brief maps out that  alternatively under pearson v callahan the court can instead hold that mr lim far has failed to put on evidence to establish a constitutional violation the complaint before the court contains sixteen paragraphs and i think it's helpful to divide the allegations in this case into two categories the first category is allegations against dr july the second category is allegations against other defendants who are not specified in the sixteen paragraphs of the complaint i'll walk through those categories in turn as the allegations against dr july specifically boiled down there are really two core allegations against dr july judgment first to the extent that mr lim parr's work assignment is related to medical diagnoses mr leonhardt has offered nothing to overcome dr july's medical judgment a doctor's decision about whether an inmate requires work restrictions is the product of professional medical judgment mistral in part is not offered anything that he points to the affidavit of dr snyder but that does not establish that mr lim park cannot do the seed in terry worked which he was assigned working as an apprentice in the textile mill dr snyder's affidavit indicates that his care was quote sub optimal but there's nothing about the relevant work assignment and of course the constitution does not prescribe suboptimal treatment second i'm a little confused by what's left in this case it was severed and we affirmed the rejection dismissal of all the claims on deliberate indifference in can medical conditions so was this just a case involving retaliation claims yes just cost that's correct the district court was initially one complaint filed the district court severed it into two separate lawsuits and the judge cost you're correct the two years ago the support from the dismissal of all the liberty difference claims but so what you say about this assignment of course i don't think there's a claim before us that the assignment was somehow cruel and unusual punishment or anything like that and the only claim is that she did this that we should consider is that she did this in retaliation for his filing complaints within the prison system that's correct that's a lawsuit before the court now it's the sixteen paragraphs in thirteen fifty of the record showing that a different hospital discharge form completed by a different provider did include a note to update the h s m eight hundred form but the fact that a different nurse included a note about that does not establish the dr july violate  there is still no plausible allegation that there is a constitutional violation this court can decide that as a matter of law but what you're saying clearly all the medical negligence is in the constitutional violation everything you're saying is correct in terms established it's all or it's all really a motive question isn't it well that i think the case to look at just cost is the macdonald the stewart case which is discussed in the briefs that lays out the legal standard for showing retaliation there's several cases cited that discuss the standard that they have to meet there's the bella case johnson the rodriguez woods the smith these cases all the what part are you saying they can't meet well it depends on the specific claim but really what they can't meet is the the causation on this court has held that he must produce direct evidence of motivation or a chronology of events he has not done that in this and it's all about a motive it's not about whether this was medical negligence or gross medical miss kind it's all about what did she why did she do this because he just is part of a regular job was she doing it to get back at him and that's what it boils down to i suppose that's correct judge cost of one cabbie which is that courts were teen lee looking qualified immunity cases for whether the conduct can be explained by a more plausible objected to that quote from charging gutierrez in the district court proceedings as hearsay but even if it weren't hearsay judge cost even if it were somehow not hearsay it's still not sufficient under the macdonald standard that we talked about a moment ago that's not direct evidence hearsay one cannot be admissible as a statement by the agent of the party opponent i'm not sure that it would be admissible that way your honor we have a brief that point we'd be happy to submit another brief discussing the hearsay issue but even if it weren't hearsay let's say comment that dr july intended to retaliate moreover we have here a single isolated comment that does not establish a chronology from which you can infer a retaliatory motive based question for the jury this court has decided these questions as a matter of law whether something's titian to constitute direct evidence or not like you would you were talking about a question about it no your honor there's no question of fact here we submit that as a matter of law that one comment is not sufficient to overcome the mcdonald standard it's not a question of fact or honor because only if they don't want to comment i'm sorry to show want to comment  ok i'm getting at i wasn't aware that you know it's i don't mean to suggest there is one common rule what i do mean to suggest is that there's no fact dispute because we're happy to take that fact as a given and say for the purposes of this appeal that even if that rise to retaliatory motive but he hasn't done that because all of dr july's conduct is properly explained as a medical judgment that's what this court is held and other cases in fact two years ago the court rejected mr lamb parr's allegations she know about the complaints before because if she did know about it then it going to be retaliation i believe he has alleged that she knew about the complaints but i don't believe there's any evidence apart from this on allegations that she knew about the complaints  the second major allegation against dr july concerns her alleged role in a prison transfer mr lynn parr was transferred from a still to the beta one infirmary on december sixteenth two thousand and nine he claims th dr july was behind this transfer and that it was retaliatory and that he is injured because pedro one is more quote dangerous but i'd like to highlight just two reasons why defendants should win summary judgment first mistral in part does not have the right to a prison of his choosing to prevail in his claim about a more dangerous prison yes to show the denial of basic human needs or an obvious and substantial risk of serious harm to his health and safety that's the woods case he's made no effort to do so here there's nothing in the record showing that pedo one falls into that category second once again the assignment to a particular medical medical facility is done records with medical judgment page thirteen seventy eight of the record reflects th just before his transfer debate over one his wound was quote almost healed now the standard you are process the utilization review process conducted by the unit classification committee concluded that he no longer needed the advanced medical services that you can get at a stele or a math the services available at the don't want as a matter of medical judgment or sufficient page thirty one of our brief walks through that analysis with the relevant record cites mr lim parganas offered nothing to rebut that finally moving away from dr july the second category broad category of allegations this complaint presents a generalized allegations against multiple defendants related to medical care in these allegations which are set out him four of the sixteen paragraphs in the complaint here mr lynn far alleges that he didn't receive the type of medical treatment he wanted and he believes that was the result of retaliation this is where he refers to things like medical showers medication and i bought it cetera two reasons i'd like to highlight why the twin should prevail first once again mr limp our police no case law establishing that he has the right to his preferred course of treatment and the medications he would two years ago result of the same medical complaints today reviewing the same evidence two years ago this court held that his allegations were quote subjective and quote not borne out by the medical evidence he presented only a disagreement over the treatment he received and of course medical disagreements are not cognizable now the record confirms that the scope was correct two years ago mr lim card declined recommended treatment on numerous occasions page one sixty eight of the record for example reflects his refusal to transfer to the u t tyler facility that would better treat his wound other sites in the record one ninety six to fourteen to twenty three were felt reflect excuse me reflect that refusal he's complained about inadequate care but when he was offered better care he turned it down  you think you may please report the the court is correct that this is a pattern of conduct on the part of dr july that began the chronology is just scorching when it comes to demonstrating a retaliatory intent on the part of doctor and this is not a medical issue mr limbaugh has not in this case is not complaining that you received inadequate treatment as the as the court pointed out this is a retaliation claim on the in primarily on the part of dr july in the other defendants there were numerous orders that appear in the record thirteen fifty thirteen fifty six to medically unassigned mr lynn power from work dr july and the other medical staff refused to update his h s m eighteen four which would medical condition as demonstrated by the record and when dr july submits an affidavit saying that she's not responsible for the assignment that's not true she is responsible in the sense that if she had cell in which mr lim part could not get the adequate treatment that he was medically ordered to get in and so in retaliation for mr lynn parts grievances which mr lamar has an absolute right to file although when to be filed a grievance is how close in time to the alleged adverse actions by the doctor the adverse actions started i believe within thirty days from mr lumpers first grievance and that started the chain of grievance each time mr lynn what's the evidence that she knew about the grievances well the the evidence is what i think that dr july acknowledged knowing about the grievances but just claims that it was not  dr july would have been notified and so that's so that is clear in the retaliation started almost immediately he was not provided the medical equipment medical care that he was ordered to ha he was reassigned to cells that would not allow him to get the proper care that he was supposed to receive dr july removed the that the special ballots that he was supposed to  have and and so it is just a pattern the started like a set almost immediately after mr lump are started filing his grievances and mr mr lump are he followed the proper chain that he was supposed to do filed his proper grievances and to put this in perspective and also as pointed out in the record this was a very serious and painful inches deep into his body and mr low bar would have to change his bandages multiple times a day because they would become soiled in soaked with the pos that was being emitted for the jury are clear as set out by the record by mr lim far as testimony the evidence that he's attached and so it is it is plain on the record the fact issues that are to be resolved by the jury and so on so i don't believe that you even need the court would even need to remand to judge it therefore those types of things i think it is clear in the record  there are a number of goods and a number of those defendants were only relevant to the claim of the medical claim that was severed and so right so what do you think's left well action on the grievance and that is really one of the most offensive aspects to the case that these grievances were filed in the still in power and they just went ignored completely on responded to and that so you judge then this just a couple of points in rebuttal just cost us me a moment ago during our exchange whether there was evidence in the record that dr drew i knew about the grievances i said i wasn't sure counsel represented that that's in her affidavit i'm not sure i don't have the other david in front of you so i wanted to just make sure that was clear on that point maybe in her affidavit at any rate of course that wouldn't affect the outcome of this case second i just want to highlight that it sounds like the parties agree that there is no need for remained to the district court to explain its reasoning in denying summary judgment i took counsel be making that point and i'm making that point to you i take that to indicate that there's no dispute that this court has jurisdiction and that the court can look at the summary judgment evidence of the record before and conclude this case is a matter of law and then my third and final point concerning the other defendants i took a  that several of them are not even in this case the district court's order if allowed to stand will result in a trial against twenty four defendants we don't even know what some of them did because they're not mentioned in the sixteen paragraphs of the complaint before this court  some of the them why do you think they're in the case judge interceptors the cases only these allegations these paragraphs are in this case so i would think people not named in those paragraphs or not in the case i would happen is confusing i that's part of the