[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12915 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cv-80122-WPD

YAQUB JAMEEL FAHEEM, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH, INC., et al.,

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants,

NINA GAMINARA, individually, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(December 28, 2012)

Before PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-12915 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Yaqub Faheem, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the summary judgment 

against his complaint that Nina Gaminara, a nurse at the Palm Beach County 

Detention Center, violated his civil rights as a pretrial detainee under the 

Fourteenth Amendment. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Faheem argues that Gaminara acted 

with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by forging his signature to 

obtain his medical records instead of having him transported for an appointment he 

had scheduled with a specialist to treat his Hepatitis C and by prescribing 

medication to treat his elevated triglycerides and cholesterol that Gaminara knew 

or should have known would exacerbate liver damage. We affirm.

We review a summary judgment de novo, and we consider the facts and 

draw reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2005). Summary 

judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[G]enuine disputes of facts are those in which the evidence is 

such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant. For factual 

issues to be considered genuine, they must have a real basis in the record.” Mann 

v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

Case: 12-12915 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 2 of 4 
3

The district court did not err when it entered summary judgment against 

Faheem’s complaint. Nurse Gaminara treated Faheem, who had a history of 

Hepatitis C, but “slightly” elevated liver enzymes, by ordering blood work to 

assess his liver and high cholesterol, regulating his diet and later prescribing Lopid 

to control his cholesterol, and ordering blood tests to monitor his liver. Faheem 

argues that Gaminara obtained his medical records to avoid sending him to a 

specialist, but Faheem fails to explain how his condition required the attention of a 

specialist. The affidavit of Dr. Chad Zawitz, a physician and medical expert, 

established that Gaminara adhered to the standard of care in her treatment of 

Faheem, including prescribing him Lopid. Faheem speculates that he had 

advanced liver disease and Lopid caused him increased knee pain and skin 

disorders, but test results and Dr. Zawitz’s affidavit established that Faheem

exhibited none of the ailments ordinarily associated with advanced liver disease

and the disease could not have been caused by administering Lopid to him. 

Faheem complained that Gaminara should have treated his Hepatitis C with the 

medication Interferon, but Dr. Zawitz averred that Interferon was contraindicated 

for inmates like Faheem who would not be detained long enough to complete the 

treatment. Even if we were to conclude that Gaminara was negligent in treating 

Faheem, negligence is not sufficient to establish deliberate indifference. See

Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1245 (11th Cir. 2003).

Case: 12-12915 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 3 of 4 
4

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Gaminara.

Case: 12-12915 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 4 of 4