fact finder needs to resolve the issue of material factors defendant jones's man's freya with respect to well why he denied providing mr miles with dentures for seventeen months he made statements to m he intended to break somebody's car because he didn't like that person or he was motivated by personal animist and working or it would require a rematch because he would be a mechanic because  suffer greater pain than should have been the case with your beef it would be your position that under those circumstances we have to remain for a factual determination as to what the dentist was thinking when he gave the provision of those services yes there are at least some facts to allege to show that the defendant might have been thinking something different other than just at motivating although they did by serving the prison then yes on page and though he was performing the services that he was hired to perform and that there is necessarily the pain that sometimes attends dental procedures it would be completely improper for a district court to grant summary judgment on well that there are some facts to raise an issue a man's red yesterday tomine they were completely separate factors and each defendant daniels stated inmate miles was responsible for losing all of his teeth and that in maine miles came to the bureau of prison with no teeth and no dentures so clearly it was not important enough for him to get takes even under mixed motives situation and that's enough to bring the employee in within the scope of employment now you're saying dryden flip side around and says that if there is anything that beyond whether or not he did this for personal animus and then if that were the case he would be outside the scope of this employment who would be liable in that case or in courts do not decide as a matter of law what is in or outside of this couple  liable his employer is liable because he was within the scope of his employment could you repeat the question well i'm trying to understand how you segment this like you're saying that he was outside the employment therefore it should go to a jury the jury then gets your argument evidence they conclude that the jones the dentist when he denied the dentures was acting outside the scope of them flying who's libel then for any damages jones yes simple cases just johns who wouldn't be the employer is what you're saying the employer would not be liable for that act because you have  outside the scope of employment therefore the employer would no longer be liable because it's not within the scope of his employment well i'm not sure about the relationship that the federal government has with defendant jones to understand that if you are representing somebody in court it's a hollow victory to get a judgment of damages against a judgment proof or anything to me as a defendant you often try to get it against the deeper pocket and i just want to know if you think you still have  evidence of deliberate indifference because he addressed specifically their concerns you said miles the saying i've lost all this weight already comes back as a way to know you've only lost three pounds he says i have everybody else that was on the dental long call waiting list and therefore the warden is indifferent for not having jumped a month on the top of the list and not at all you're on the we were arguing that he jumped on the list we are simply arguing that the seventeen months lady accompanied by his chronic pain gastrointestinal problems and other issues was too long if we disagreed with your the second part of your statement that there was severe pain based on the fact that he did the it under the federal tort claims act and mr miles even acknowledged that before the district court went in his objection to the f a r c the requested permission to file a federal tort claim that claim but apparently never did s the jones but this guy was the cause of his own problems and they weren't about they didn't have the resources why should they waste time with him here this problem we didn't have the intrusion he created the problem by losing we're l jury than to decide whether he was inside or outside the scope of employment his own words he recounts what were the accurate facts and i think it's an acknowledgement on his behalf that for example if mr miles had lost all of his teeth while he was at sheridan then they would in fact have a higher obligation to there's no presumption that someone who has no teeth has to have dentures in order to maintain a minimum level of existence and that the cases that are relied upon on the wrote the memo and made the medical statements about his condition you may have relied on others and i understand that but he also made it he was the one who asserted what the medical rationale was for not giving him the dentures lay person acting as an administrator supposed to investigate it determine that in fact his medical staff is taking care of the issue he did the research that he was supposed to do as the war and then determined that in fact mr miles complaints were without foundation that his claim that he had lost fourteen pounds was simply false all the warden had to do was check the antec records to determine that in fact he'd only lost three pounds since arriving at the institution but there was no indication of any nutritional deficit or any life threatening issues that would require