F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT A pril 2 7, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1122 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 05-22054 -CV -PA S KENNET H F. LEON ARD, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE OF FLORIDA, W EXFORD HEALT H, INC., DA VI D H ARR IS, GILLERMO SOMODEVILLA, a. k. a . G . S om odevill a, A. PIPEN, T. L. GREEN, GAIL SMITH, a. k. a . G
. J. S m ith , Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A pr il 27, 200 7)2

Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant K enne th L eo nard , aF lor ida pr iso ne r, appe al s pr o se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s su a spon te dis m iss al of P la int if f’ s c om pla int a lle gin g an E igh th A me n dme n tv i o l a t i o n . F i n d i n g n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r , w e a f f i rm. T he se are the f

ac ts a s P la int if

f al le ge s th em . P la int if

f is an in m at e in F lor ida at the D ade Corr ectional Institut ion. In 2004, prison autho rities gave hima oney ear m ed ic al pa ss t o auth or iz e his use of “ Br ogan” boo ts f

or his arthr iti s. I n 20 05, Pl ai nti ff r eque ste d ar en ew al of

the pa ss and e xpl ai ne d to N ur se S m ithw hy he
ne ed ed it , but P la int if f’ s r eque st w as de nie d. A ssi stant W ar de n P ipi n and Correc tional Office r G reen took Plaintiff’ s boot s away and gave him

a pair of deck shoes, called “ Bobos.” Subsequently , L eonard sough t m edical car e for sw ollen knees and hip s, back problem s, and continual pain. Plaintiff w as given “ special relief cream ” for his arthritis, an order pre venting him from standing for m ore than te n m inu te s, and anti -i nf

lam m at or y m ed ic at ion
. Pl ai nti ff f ile d th is a ct ionund er

42 U
. S. C. § 19 83, se ek ing c om pe nsator y and puni tive dam ages, a gainst (1) the Florida De partm ent of Corre ctions, (2) W exford He alth Sources, Inc. (“ W exford”), (3) W arden D avid Har ris, ( 4) Staf

f Phy sician Dr. Somode vi ll a, (5 ) Ass is ta ntW ard en A. Pip in , (6) Co rrec ti on al Offic er J .L.Plaintiff also fi l ed an eme rg ency motion for a tempora

ry restra ining or der a

nd a pre liminary 1 injunction, seekingto preve nt the defendants from c ontinuing to deny him adequate and prope r footwea r. Plaintiff’s motion was denied, and he failed to ra ise this issue on appeal. Thus, Plaintiff has waived the i ssue. See Farr ow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1242 n.10 (11th Cir. 2003) (notingthat a pro se appellant’ s failure to argue the mer its of a claim constitutes a waiver of the issue on a

ppeal)
. In a n o bje c tio n to the ma g istrate ’s re po rt a nd re c omm e nd atio n to dis mis s th e c omp la int s, 2 Plaintiff argued that Dr . Somodevilla’s wrong doing w as his failure to fulfill his “obligation to revie w all medical recor ds and cor rec t Nurse Pra cticioner

Smit h.” B ut this allegation is notevident fr om the mos t li be ra l r e a din gof Pla int if f’ s c omp la int
. 3 G re en , and ( 7) N ur se G
. J. S m ith
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed the a ct ionund er

28 U
. S. C. § 19 15( e) (2 )( B) (i i) f or f ai lur e to s tate ac la im

upo n whic h r el ie f m ay

be gr an te d. 1 W e re view de novo a dism issal for failure to state a claim under § 1915 (e )( 2) (B )( ii)
. H ughe s v. L ott , 350 F
. 3d 1 157, 115 9- 60 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3)
. A nd
w e w ill a cc ep t a ll al le ga tio ns i n P la int if f’ s c om pla int a s tr ue and w ill c onstru e the m in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to Pl ai nti ff

. S ee id. a t 11 60. A s an in iti al m atte r, w e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ea sons f or dis m iss ing the c om pla int s a ga ins t the D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns and D r. S om ode vil la
. T he De partm ent of Corre ctions is not am enable to suit because it has imm unityunder th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t. St ev en s v . Gay , 86 4 F .2d11 3, 1 15 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). And Plaintiff’ s com

plaint alleges no wr ongd oing by Dr . S om odevill a. 2TakingPlaintiffs’ alleg ations as true, w e assume he has shown an objectively serious medica l 3 ne e d th at - - w ith out tr e atme nt - - p os e s a su bs tanti a l r isk

of se ri ou s h arm . 4 Pl ai nti ff ’ s c om pla int s a ga ins t the r em ai nin g de fe ndants are ins uf fi ci en t be ca use e ve n a ssum ing the f

ac ts a s a lle ge d by

P la int if f, he c annot

sho wan E igh th Am en dm en t v io la ti on . D el ibe rate ind if

fe re nc e to an in m at e’ s se ri ous m ed ic al ne ed s vi olate s th e Eighth Am endm ent. E stelle v. G am ble, 97 S. Ct. 285, 291 (197 6). But not every cl ai m of i na de qu at e m ed ic al tre at m en t s ta te s a v io la ti on of t ha t am en dm en t. Id
.

“ Me dic al tr eatm en t vi olate s th e E igh th am en dm en t on ly w he n it is so g ro ssl y inc om pe te nt, ina de quate , or

e xc es siv e as to shoc k th e co nsc ie nc e or to be int ole ra ble to fundam en ta l f

ai rn es s. ” H ar

ri s v. T hig pe n, 941 F
. 2d 1 495, 150 5 (11th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation s om itted). T o pr ove he w as de nie d m ed ic al c ar e in v iol at ionof the E igh th Am en dm en t, Plaintiff m

ust first show “ an objec tively serious m edical need, one that, if le ft
unatte nde d, pos es asub stanti al r isk of se ri ous harm . T ay lor

v. A dam s, 221 F
. 3d 3 1254 , 125 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0) ( int er na l qu otatio ns and c itatio ns o m itt ed ). S ec ond, Plaintiff m

ust dem onstrate “ that the response m ade by publi c officia ls to that need
w as poo r en oughto co nst itute an unne ce ssary and w an toninf

lic tio n of pa in, and5

not m erely

accidental inadequacy , negligence in diagnosi s or treatm ent, or e ven
m ed ic al m al pr ac tic e ac tio nable und er state law . ” Id
. W e agre e w ith the dis trict court that Plaintiff’ s com plaint fails to state a cl ai m und er the E igh th Am en dm en t. U nde r the f ac ts a s a lle ge d, P la int if

f cannot showthat the de fe ndants ’ m ed ic al tr eatm en t c onst itute d an “unne ce ssary and
w an toninf

lic tio n of pa in. ” P la int if

f adm its that whe n he c om pla ine d of

pa in i n 2005 , he w as giv enspe ci al r el ie f cr eam f or his arthr iti s, an or de r pr ev en tin g hi m fro m st an di ng form or e th an ten m in ut es , andan ti -in fla m m at ory pa in m ed ic at io n. And Plaintiff does not say these specific tre atm ents wer e unsuccessful or given wit h d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o h is m ed ic al ne ed s. Pl ai nti ff m er el y a lle ge s th at

he w as de nie d th e Br ogan bo ots , w hic h he asserts are necessary

to treat his arthritis, and that th e denial of this m edical treatm ent caused him

further inj ury . But a differ ence of opinion b etwe en an inm ate and prison m edical staff does not -- by

itself -- give rise to a claim under the E igh th Am en dm en t. A nd n eg lig en ce in m ed ic al j udgm en t i s si m ilarl y insufficient to state a claim
. Although Plaintiff has m ade som e conclusory
re fe re nc es to the de fe ndants ’ “ de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e to s er iou s m ed ic al ne ed s, ” he has alleged no facts to supp ort such ind iffer ence. A ccordingly , P laintiff has6

al le ge d no vio latio n of

the E igh th Am en dm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in d i s mi s s i n g f

o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m. Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al is AFFIR MED.