Case Name: Emilio AMAYA, Jr., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Emilio Amaya, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FLORIDA, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Public Health Trust of Dade County, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-25
Citations: 194 F. App'x 703
Docket Number: No. 05-12491
Parties: Emilio AMAYA, Jr., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Emilio Amaya, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FLORIDA, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Public Health Trust of Dade County, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 703–704

Head Matter:
Emilio AMAYA, Jr., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Emilio Amaya, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FLORIDA, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Public Health Trust of Dade County, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-12491.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 25, 2006.
Arthur Joel Berger, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jeremy Paul Leathe, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and HILL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this ease, plaintiff, the personal representative of the Estate of Emilio Amaya, Sr., claims that the medical staff assigned to Turner Guilford Knight ("TGK"), a Miami-Dade County correctional facility, were deliberately indifferent to his decedent's serious medical needs while his decedent was an inmate at TGK, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and that such deliberate indifference caused his decedent's death. He seeks damages against the County and its Public Health Trust (which was responsible for providing medical care for TGK inmates) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the ground that the medical staff, in failing to attend to the decedent's serious medical needs, were acting pursuant to the defendants' customs and practices.
The defendants denied plaintiffs allegations, and the case came on for trial before a jury. At the close of the evidence, the district court granted the defendants judgment as a matter of law, concluding that there was no evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that the defendants maintained the custom and practice alleged. Plaintiff appealed the judgment, and we heard oral argument. Having heard argument of counsel and considered the record before the jury, we agree with the district court that the evidence failed to establish that the medical staff acted pursuant to a custom and practice of the County and its Public Health Trust.
AFFIRMED.