### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A pril 1 8, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1431 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 22 74 5- CV-DLG RAY HENRY FAISON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us M. ROSADO, G. BLACKMAN, et al ., D ef en dants , JUAN R. MONSERRATE, M.D., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 18, 200 5) Be fo re BL A CK , W IL SO N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Ray H enry F ai son, af

ed er al pr iso ne r pr oc ee din g pro se , a ppeals the dist rict
co urt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udge m en t i n hi s 42 U . S. C. § 19 83 a ct ion
. O n a ppe al , Faison argues that Dr. Monserrate, a staff doctor at Feder al Corre ctional Institut ion in Miam i (FCI ), dem onstrated deliberate indifference to his m edical
ne ed s. F ai son as se rt s th at D r. Mo nse rr at e vio late d hi s E igh th A m en dm en t r igh ts by f ai lin g to f oll owthe r ec om

m en da tio n of

an ortho pe dis t, D r. K im , to re fe r him to a phy sic al the ra

pis t who w oul d have ins tr uc te d hi m on p ro pe r w ei ght

be ar ing in order to prevent his osteop orosis from progressing. Dr . Monserr ate re spon ds that Fa iso n di d no t de m onstrate ase ri ous m ed ic al ne ed , and D r. K im ’ s c om m en t regarding phy sical therapy wa s just a r ecom

m endation th at Faison see a phy sical th erap is t i f av ai labl e. V ie w ing a ll ev ide nc e an d f ac tua l i nf er en ce s r ea sona

bly dr awn f ro m the
ev ide nc e in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the non -m ovi ng p ar ty , w e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t de novo
. B urton v . T am pa H ousi ng A uth ori ty , 271 F . 3d 1 274, 127 6- 77 ( 11th C ir
. 200 1)
. S um m ar y j udgm en t i s ap pr opr iate if

the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, answ er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, and adm iss ion s onf

ile , tog ethe r w iththe a ff

idavit s, if any , sho wthe re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any

m at er ia l f

ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to j udgm en t a s a3

m at te r of law. Ce lotexv . Ca tre tt , 477 U . S. 317 , 323 -2 4, 106 S
. Ct
. 254 8, 255 3 (1986). Aparty

m ovin g for sum

m ary j udgm ent has the burden of sho wing that th ere i s n o g en ui ne is su e o f fac t. Ebe rhardt v
. W ate rs , 901 F . 2d 1 578, 158 0 ( 11th Ci r. 19 90 ). Once the m ovin g party

has properly

suppo rted its m otion for sum m ary j udgm en t, the bur de n sh if ts t o th e nonm ovi ng p ar

ty to co m e fo rw ar d w ithspe ci fi c fact s s ho win g t ha t t he re i s a g en ui ne is su e fo r tr ia l. Mat su sh it a El ec. In du s. Co ., Lt d. v . Z en ith R adi o C

orp ., 47 5 U.S. 5 74 , 58 7, 1 06 S. Ct. 1 34 8, 1 35 6 (1 98 6) . A party opp osi ng a

pr ope rl y sub m itt ed

m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t m ay

not r es t uponm er e al le ga tio ns o r de nia ls o f his ple ad ing s, but m ust se t f orth s pe ci fi c fa ct s sh owi ng th atth ere i s a g en ui ne is su e fo r tr ia l. A nde rso n v . L ibe rtyL obby , I nc ., 477 U.S . 242, 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505 , 2511 (1986). “ A m ere ‘ scintilla’ of evidence supp ortin g th e oppo sin g party ’ s po sit ionw ill not suf fi ce ; the re m

ust be e noug h of a showing that the jury

could reasonably

find for that party .” W

alk er v . D arby , 911 F. 2d 15 73, 1577 (11t h Cir. 1990 ). 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 Eig ht h Am en dm en t. E

ste llev . G am ble , 429 U . S. 97, 104 , 97 S
. Ct
. 285 , 291 (1 976)
. I n E

ste lle , the S upr em e Co urt r ea sone d th at “ [a ] n in m at e m

ust r el y on pr iso n auth or iti es to tr eat hi s m ed ic al ne ed s; i f the auth or iti es f ai l t o do so, tho se4

needs will not be m et.” Id . at 103, 97 S. C t. at 290. Ever y claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate m edical treatm ent, howe ver, does not s tate a vi ol at io n o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. McElligo tt v. Foley , 182 F . 3d 1 248, 125 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9)
. Me dic al tr eatm en t vi olate s th e E igh th A m en dm en t on ly w he n it is “ so gr oss ly 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 intol erable to fundam ental fairness. ” Harris v. T higp en , 941 F . 2d 1 495, 150 5 (11th Cir. 1991). To show an objectively serious deprivation of m edical car e, an inm ate m ust dem onstrate (1) an obj ectively serious m edical need that, left
unatte nde d, pos es asub stanti al r isk of se ri ous harm , and ( 2) that the r es pons e m ade by publi c officia ls to that need was poor enough to constit ute an unnecessary
an d w an toninf

lic tio n of pa in, and n ot m er el y

a cc ide nta l i na de qua cy , ne gli ge nc e in di ag no si s o r tr eat m en t, o r ev en m ed ic al m al pr act ic e act io nabl e u nd er s ta te law. Ta yl or v. Ada ms , 221 F . 3d 1 254, 125 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0) ( quot at ionand c itatio n om itted). I n additio n, to show the required subje ctive intent to p unish , a plaintiff
m ust de m onstrate that the pub lic of fi ci al a ct ed

w ithan atti tud e of

“ de lib er at e indifference, ” by

dem onstrating (1) aw areness of f acts fr om which the infer ence co uld be dr awn th at

asub stanti al r isk

of se ri ous harm

e xis te d, and ( 2) the dr aw ing of th is in fere nc e. Id . (qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d)
.5

Be ca use an in adve rt en t f

ai lur e to p ro vid e ad equa te m ed ic al c ar e doe s no t co nst itute “ unne ce ssary

and w an toninf

lic tio n of pa in, ” a pr iso ne r’ s c om

pla int

“ that a phy sic ian ha s be enne gli ge nt i n di ag nosi ng o r tr eatin g am ed ic al c ondi tio n doe s no t st at e a va lid

c la im of m ed ic al m istre atm en t un de r the E igh th Am endm ent.” E

ste lle , 429 U. S. at 105-06, 97 S. C t. at 292. “ Medical m alpractice do es no t b eco m e a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n m erel y be cau se th e v ic ti m

is a pr is on er. Inor de r to s tate ac ogni za ble c la im , apr iso ne r m

ust a lle ge a ct s or

om iss ion s su ffi ci en tl y

ha rm fu l t o e vi de nc e d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o s eri ou s m ed ic al ne ed s.” Id . at 1 06 , 97 S. Ct. at29 2. In the instant case, the district court did not err in granting summ ary j udgm en t a s to F ai son’ s c la im of de lib er at e ind if

fe re nc e to h is m ed ic al ne ed s. Faison’ s m edical re cords show that he wa s regularly seen by the m edical staff while at the F CI. Further, there is nothing in the record that w ouldindicate that Dr . K im ’ s Novem

ber 2000 no tation th at Faison shou ld be refe rred to a phy sical the ra pis t, if ava ila ble , w as an or de r an d no t j ust ar ec om m en da tio n. N ev er

the le ss, D r. Mo nse rr at e tr eate d F ai son co nsi ste ntl y w ithD r. K im ’ s r ec om

m en da tio n by refe rri ng hi m

to a m id -le ve l p ract it io ne r who in st ru ct edFai so n o n p ro pe r ROM
ex er ci se s and w ei ght

be ar ing a ct ivi tie s. D r. Mo nse rr at e re gul ar ly r ef er re d F ai son to an ortho pe dic c onsu ltant, and F ai son w as c onsi ste ntl y a dvi se d to start

be ar ing6

w ei ght on h is r igh t f

oot r athe r than us ing aw he el ch ai r or c rutc he s. A lth ough Faison m ight n ot agree w ith the m ethod of treatm ent provided , m atters of m edical j udgm ent do no t give rise to a § 1983 claim
. Even if phy sical therapy wa s a part of am or e ag gr es siv e tr eatm en t pl an , D r. Mo nse rr at e’ s f ai lur e to r ef

er F ai son to a phy sical therapist m ay

am ountto neglig ence but not to a cogni zable constitutio nal
c l a i m. Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndup on co ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we find no reversible error. AFFIRMED.