Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Howell v. Evans, 922 F.2d 712, 723 (“We do not dispute [the] right to rely on medical professionals for clinical determinations.”), vacated by settlement, 931 F.2d 711 (11th Cir.1991), reinstated by order, 12 F.3d 190 n. * (11th Cir.1994); see also Dolihite v. Maughon ex rel. Videon, 74 F.3d 1027, 1054-55 (11th Cir.1996) (awarding director of adolescent center summary judgment on section 1983 due process complaint when director could “reasonably rely on” judgment of medical personnel to secure suicidal youth’s surroundings). We affirm the dismissal of Acosta’s complaint against Watts. Acosta’s complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim of deliberate indifference against unknown named personnel in the Office of Medical Designation. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397, 91 S.Ct. at 2005 (<HOLDING>). Acosta alleged that he had a serious medical 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing cause of action for damages against federal agents acting under their authority who allegedly violated plaintiffs fourth amendment rights (B) recognizing a cause of action for damages against officials who violate constitutional or statutory rights under color of federal law (C) recognizing cause of action against federal officials for violation of constitutional rights (D) holding plaintiff may sue federal agents for money damages for violation of his constitutional rights (E) recognizing an action for damages against unknown federal agents for the violation of constitutional rights
Output (English): holding plaintiff may sue federal agents for money damages for violation of his constitutional rights