FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUNE 9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13170 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 36 -C V -W L S -6 C H R I S T O P H E R Y O N B R A N N O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s T H O M A S C O U N T Y J A I L , C A R L T O N P O W E L L , S h e r if f , T h o m a s C o u n ty , J O H N R I C H A R D S , C ap ta in , T h o m a s C o u n tyJ a il, D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 9, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A t th e tim e o f

th e e v e n ts g iv in g r is e to p la in tif f’s c la im s f

o rd a m a g e s in th is ca se , w hi ch w er e broug htun der 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, pl ai nt i ff w as a pre tri al det ai nee hous e d i n the T hom a s C ounty( G e or gi a ) J a i l . H i s c l a i m s a r e a ga i ns tthe defe nd ant s, T ho m as C ou nty, the T ho m as C ou nty J ai l , T ho m as C ou nty S heri ff C ar l t on P ow el l , and T ho m as C ou nty J ai l C apt ai n Joh n R i char ds. H e a l l eges that w hi l e he w a s hous e d i n the j a i l , the de f e nda nt s w e r e de l i be r a t e l yi ndi f f e r e nt t o w ard s h i s m ed i cal n eed s, i n v i o l at i o n o f th e E i g h th an d F o u rt een th A m en d m en t s, b y : ( 1 ) w a itin g f

o rs e v e r a l d a y s to ta k e h im to a n o rth o p e d is t a f te rh e b r o k e h is ha nd; ( 2) de pr i vi ng hi m of pr e s c r i pt i on pa i n m e di c a t i on dur i ng pa rtof tha tpe r i od; a nd ( 3) i gnor i ng hi s c om pl a i nt s tha the w a s s uf f e r i ng pa i n f

r om the c a s tthe o rth o p e d is t g a v e h im . H e a ls o a lle g e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts v io la te d h is c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s bym a ki ng i m pr ope rde duc t i ons f r om hi s pr i s on a c c ounta nd d e p r iv in g h im o f

h is m e d ic a l a n d c r im in a l r e c o r d s . T he de f e nda nt s m ove d the di s tr i c tc ourtf ors um m a ryj udgm e nt , a nd the courtgrant ed the m ot i on . P l ai nt i ff no w appeal s thatrul i ng , cont endi ng that su m m ary j u d g m en tw as n o tap p ro p ri at e as t o h i s cl ai m o f m ed i cal d el ay b ecau se the defendant s f

ai l ed t o p rovi de the m edi ca l care thathe re qu i re d; m oreover, an u n e x p la in e d d e la yin tr e a tin g as e r io u s m e d ic a l c o n d itio n c o n s titu te s d e lib e r a te i nd i ff er ence . H e a l so cont ends thatm at er i al i ss ues of f ac tre m ai n as t o w hether3

(1) he w as no tapprov ed t o see the ortho pedi stun t i l four days af t erhe w as di agno se d, and (2) C apt ai n R i char ds hi nd er ed hi s tre atm enti n a w aythatw as g r o s s lyin a d e q u a te . W i th res pectt o h i s c l ai m thathe w as depri ved o f m edi ca t i on , he says that sum m ary j ud gm entw as i napp ropri at e bec ause (1) the defendant s f ai l ed t o m ee t basi c m edi ca l st andards by onl y provi di ng ov er -the-c ou nt erm edi ci ne on the three d a y s th a t h e d id n o t h a v e ap r e s c r ip tio n f o rp a in m e d ic in e , a n d ( 2 ) a f te rh e v e rb a lly r e que s t e d pr e s c r i pt i on pa i n m e di c i ne , the de f e nda nt s f a i l e d t o pr ovi de the n e c e s s a rytr e a tm e n t. F i nal l y, he cont ends thatsum m ary j ud gm entw as i napp ropri at e w i th res pect t o hi s c l a i m tha the w a s de pr i ve d of m e di c a l c a r e w he n he e xpe r i e nc e d pa i n f r om hi s c as tbecause ( 1) base d o n h i s c as tcare i nstruct i on s, the sy m pt om s he w as e x p e r ie n c in g w e r e to b e r e p o rte d im m e d ia te ly , ( 2 ) h e m a d e v e rb a l c o m p la in ts ab o u t h is p a in r a th e rth a n w r itte n o n e s , a n d ( 3 ) th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ a s s e rtio n th a t h e d id no tm ake c om pl ai nt s “ confl i ct s w i th the re as on he re m ov ed hi s c as t . ” I n hi s r e pl ybr i e f

, pl a i nt i f f a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourts houl d notha ve g ran t ed su m m ary j u d g m en tw i th o u tg i v i n g h i m a ch an ce t o co m p l et e d i sco v ery, an d th at th e c o u rt erre db y n o t co n sid er in g h is o b jectio n s to th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s r e porta nd r e c om m e nda t i on ( “ R & R ” ) , w hi c h r e c om m e nde d tha tthe c ourtgr a nt4

th e d e f e n d a n ts s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. P la in tif f h a s ab a n d o n e d h is c la im s th a t h e s u f f e r e d ad e p r iv a tio n o f

h is co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s d u e t o d ed u ct i o n s fro m h i s p ri so n acco u n tan d th e d efen d an t s’ fai l u re t o p ro v i d e m ed i cal an d cri m i n al reco rd s b y n eg l ect i n g t o rai se th o se ar gu m ent s i n h i s bri ef

. S ee H art sf

i el d v . L em ac ks, 50 F . 3d 95 0, 95 3 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) ( n o tin g th a t “[ i]s s u e s th a t c le a r lya r e n o t d e s ig n a te d in th e in itia l b r ie f

o r d in a r ilya r e c o n s id e r e d ab a n d o n e d ” ) . T o th e e x te n t th a t h is r e p ly br i e f a tt e m pt s t o c ha l l e nge the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i ons r e ga r di ng di s c ove ry , he aba ndone d thos e a r gum e nt s bynotr a i s i ng the m i n hi s i ni t i a l br i e f . S e e i d. F u rth e r , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is m ot i on t o fi l e unt i m el y obj ec t i on s t o the R & R because he app ea l ed the fi nal j udgm e ntbe f

or e tha tor de rw a s e nt e r e d a nd di d notf i l e a n a m e nde d not i c e of appe a l . S e e K i rkl a nd v. N a t ’ l M ort ga ge N e tw ork, I nc . , 884 F . 2d 1367, 1369- 70 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( pr ovi di ng tha ta n appe a l f r om af i na l j udgm e ntbr i ngs up f or r e v ie w a ll p r e c e d in g n o n - f in a l o r d e r s ) . P la in tif f a ls o h a s f

a ile d to c h a lle n g e th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s r e f u s a l to c ons i de rhi s unt i m e l yr e s pons e t o the m ot i on f ors um m a ryj udgm e nta nd the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n f

o rle a v e to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t. A cc ordi ng l y, w e do n otconsi der ( 1) pl ai nt i ff’ s r es po nse t o the m ot i on for s um m ary5

j udgm e nta nd ( 2) the doc um e nt s r e l a t e d t o hi s m ot i on f orl e a ve t o a m e nd the c om pl a i nt , i nc l udi ng the m ot i on i t s e l f , hi s s upport i ng a f

f i da vi t , a nd hi s r e pl yt o the defe nd ant s’ re spon se . W i th these m att er s outof the w ay , w e now consi der pl a i nt i f f’ s c ha l l e nge t o the gr a nt i ng of s um m a ryj udgm e nton hi s c l a i m s tha tthe d efen d an t s w ere d el i b erat el y i n d i fferen tt o h i s seri o u s m ed i cal n eed s.

“ [ W e ] r e vi e w [ ] the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ryj udgm e ntde novo, ap p l yi n g th e sam e l eg al st an d ard th atth e d i stri ctco u rtem p l o yed i n th e fi rst in s ta n c e .” Y a n g v . G o v e rn m e n t E m p lo y e e s I n s . C o ., 1 4 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ). “ [A ] m o v i n g p arty i s en t i t l ed t o su m m ary j u d g m en t‘ i f th e p l ead i n g s, de pos i t i ons , a ns w e r s t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how tha tthe r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a nym a t e r i a l f a c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa rtyi s e nt i t l e d t o j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w . ’ ” F i t z pa tr i c k v. C ityo f A tla n ta , 2 F .3 d 1 1 1 2 , 1 1 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( q u o tin g F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ( c ) ) . A pa rty oppos i ng apr ope r l y - s upport e d m ot i on f ors um m a ryj udgm e nt“ m a ynot rel y m erel y o n al l eg at i o n s o r d en i al s i n i t s o w n p l ead i n g ; rath er, i t s resp o n se m u s t–b ya f

f id a v its o ra s o th e rw is e p r o v id e d in th is ru le

– s e t o u t s p e c if ic f a c ts s how i ng age nui ne i s s ue f ortr i a l . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 56( e ) . “ T he r e i s age nui ne i s s ue o f m a te r ia l f

a c t if th e n o n m o v in g p a rtyh a s p r o d u c e d e v id e n c e s u c h th a t a r e a s onabl e f

a c t f i nde rc oul d r e turn ave r di c ti n i t s f a vor . ” W a dde l l v. V a l l e yF or ge6

D e n ta l A s s o c s ., I n c ., 2 7 6 F .3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . S t a t e of f i c i a l s ’ tr e a tm e ntof

pr e tr i a l de t a i ne e s i s gove rne d bythe D ue P roce ss C l ause of the F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent , w hi l e tre atm entof conv i ct ed p ri so n ers i s g o v ern ed b y th e E i g h th A m en d m en t . L an cast er v . M o n ro e C o u n ty, A la., 1 1 6 F .3 d 1 4 1 9 , 1 4 2 5 n .6 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). W e th er ef o re co n sid erp lain ti ff’s c la im s a s h a v in g b e e n b a s e d o n th e D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e ndm e nt . T hi s i s of no m om e nt , how e ve r , s i nc e the appr opr i a t e l e ga l s t a nda r ds f o rp r o v is io n o f

m e d ic a l c a r e a r e th e s a m e u n d e rb o th c o n s titu tio n a l a m e n d m e n ts . H e n c e , E ig h th a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t c a s e s c a n b e u s e d in te r c h a n g e ab lyin th e “d e lib e r a te in d if

f e r e n c e ” a n a ly s is . I d . U n d e rth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t, de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o apr i s one r ’ s s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds c ons t i tut e s the

“ unne c e s s a rya nd w a nt on i nf l i c t i on of pa i n. ” E s t e l l e v. G a m bl e , 429 U . S . 97, 104, 97 S . C t . 285, 291, 50 L . E d. 2d 251 ( 1976) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . I n or de rt o m a ke ou ta c as e of del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence , a pri soner m ustes t abl i sh thathi s m edi ca l tr e a tm e ntw a s “ s o gr os s l yi nc om pe t e nt , i na de qua t e , ore xc e s s i ve a s t o s hoc k the c ons c i e nc e ort o be i nt ol e r abl e t o f unda m e nt a l f

a i rne s s . ” H a rr i s v. T hi gpe n, 941 F .2 d 1 4 9 5 , 1 5 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . T o d e m o n s tr a te th a t a pri son o ff

i ci al ac t ed w i th d el i bera t e i nd i ff er ence , the pri soner m ustshow (1) an o b je c tiv e lys e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d , a n d ( 2 ) th a t th e p r is o n o f f ic ia l a c te d w ith7

de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t ow a r d tha tne e d. F a rr ow v. W e s t , 320 F . 3d 1235, 1243 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . I n e s t abl i s hi ng § 1983 l i abi l i ty , apr i s one rc a nnotr e l yon the or i e s of vi c a r i ous l i abi l i tyorr e s ponde a ts upe r i or . S e e C ook e x. r e l . E s t a t e of T e s s i e rv. S heri ff of M on roe C ou nty, F l a. , 40 2 F . 3d 10 92 , 11 15 -16 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). F or a defe nd antt o b e l i abl e i n h i s i nd i vi du al capaci ty, § 1 98 3 requi re s proof of an af fi rm at i ve causal l i nk betw ee n the offi ci al ’ s a ct s or om i ss i on s and the al l eged const i tut i on al depri vat i on . S ee Z at l erv. W ai nw ri gh t , 80 2 F . 2d 39 7, 40 1 (11 th C i r. 19 86 ). T he causal conn ec t i on m aybe prov en by show i ng thatthe offi ci al (1) w as pers on al l y i nv ol ved i n the ac t s or om i ss i on s thatre sul t ed i n the const i tut i on al depri vat i on ; (2) e st abl i shed a pol i cyor cust om thatre sul t ed i n the const i tut i on al d e p r iv a tio n ; o r( 3 ) b r e a c h e d ad u tyim p o s e d b ys ta te o rlo c a l la w . I d . A ddi t i ona l l y , al oc a l gove rnm e ntm a ynotbe he l d l i abl e on ar e s ponde a ts upe r i or the ory ; i ns t e a d, i ti s onl yw he n the e xe c ut i on of agove rnm e nt a l pol i c yorc us t om in f lic ts th e in

ju ryth a t th e g o v e rn m e n t a s a n e n tityis r e s p o n s ib le u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 . B oa r d of C ountyC om m ’ r s of

B ry a n C ounty , O kl . v. B r ow n, 520 U . S . 397, 403, 117 S . C t . 1382, 1388, 137 L . E d. 2d 626 ( 1997) . W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha t“ [ f ] or liab ilityp u rp o s e s , as u it a g a in s t ap u b lic o f f ic ia l in h is o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ityis c ons i de r e d as ui ta ga i ns tthe l oc a l gove rnm e nt a l e nt i tyhe r e pr e s e nt s . ” V i ne y a r d v.We note that the Thomas County J ail is not an entity

capa ble of be ing sue d under 1 Georg ia law. Ge org ia Insurers Insolvency Pool v. Elbert County , 368 S.E.2d 500, 502 (Ga. 1988). 8 C o u n tyo f

M u rr a y , G a ., 9 9 0 F .2 d 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 1 0 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . B e a r i ng the s e pr i nc i pl e s i n m i nd, a nd c ons i de r i ng the r e c or d i n the l i ght m ostfa vo rabl e t o p l ai nt i ff , w e f i nd no error i n the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on (bas ed o n th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s R & R ) g r a n tin g th e d e f e n d a n ts s u m m a ryju d g m e n t in the i rof f i c i a l c apa c i t i e s . N ordo w e f i nd a nye rr ori n the c ourtde c i s i on gr a nt i ng 1 the defendant s s um m ary j ud gm enti n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es . T he un di sput ed f a c t s a r e tha tthe r e w e r e no de l a y s i n pl a i nt i f f’ s m e di c a l tr e a tm e nt . I tc oul d not re as on abl y be s ai d thata j ai l offi ce r r es po nsi bl e f or se ei ng t o i tthatpl ai nt i ff r e c e iv e d ap p r o p r ia te m e d ic a l a tte n tio n a n d tr e a tm e n t w a s d e lib e r a te lyin d if f e r e n t to h is s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t is , a c c o r d in g ly , AF F I R ME D.