Opinion ID: 2765413
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Moore’s Claim of Deliberate Indifference

Text: We conclude that Moore has shown no reversible error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Moore failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the objective component of his deliberate indifference claim. Specifically, he presented no evidence that applying paint stripper with only a face shield for one week created a substantial risk of serious harm to his health or safety. See Chandler, 379 F.3d at 1289. Although Moore asserted that this exposure to the paint stripper caused various health problems, including a nodule in his lung, his medical records contain no evidence that such a limited exposure to the paint stripper was capable of causing these types of health problems or the nodule.6 Indeed, the only suggestion in Moore’s medical records of a possible 6 While causation is a separate element of Moore’s deliberate indifference claim, see Hale, 50 F.3d at 1582, the issue of whether his exposure to paint stripper likely could cause health problems also comes into play as to the objective component of his claim because the objective factor allows a court to consider, among other things, a “scientific and statistical inquiry into the seriousness of the potential harm and the likelihood that such injury to health will actually be caused by exposure to [a substance].” Kelley v. Hicks, 400 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Helling, 509 U.S. at 36, 113 S. Ct. at 2482) (quotation marks omitted). In Kelley, we reasoned that the plaintiff-prisoner had failed to meet the objective component of his deliberate indifference claim in part because he had “offer[ed] no evidence to show that his headaches were causally linked to his exposure to [environmental tobacco smoke].” Id. at 1285. 11 Case: 14-11201 Date Filed: 12/30/2014 Page: 12 of 13 cause of his respiratory issues is the repeated notation that he was a chronic smoker. 7 Even if a jury reasonably could infer that the limited exposure to the paint stripper was capable of causing health problems like Moore’s, Moore has not shown that the limited paint stripper exposure here caused his problems or an issue of fact as to causation. See Hale, 50 F.3d at 1582. Although medical records confirm that Moore has a thirteen-millimeter nodule on his right lung, multiple CT scans over the course of about a year show that the nodule is benign and stable in its size and condition. The medical records contain no evidence of causation between the paint-stripping and the nodule. Even if Moore could satisfy the objective factor of his claim, he would fail on the subjective component because he has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent. The undisputed evidence shows that the defendants responded reasonably to the risks posed by the Wheeler House restoration project by arranging training for inmate 7 On appeal, Moore argues that the defendants failed to produce the records from his May 22, 2013 appointment with Dr. Clay, in which Dr. Clay allegedly indicated that Moore’s nodule was caused by his exposure to lead-based paint and paint stripper without proper protection. However, this assertion is belied by the record, as the defendants did in fact file a May 22, 2013 report by Dr. Clay concerning his appointment with Moore, and the report contains no such indication as to the cause of Moore’s respiratory issues. Moreover, although Moore claimed in one of his responses to the defendant’s special report that Dr. Clay told him during the May 22 appointment that exposure to the paint stripper caused his nodule, this pleading was unsworn. See Nicholson v. Ga. Dep’t of Human Res., 918 F.2d 145, 148 n.1 (11th Cir. 1990). 12 Case: 14-11201 Date Filed: 12/30/2014 Page: 13 of 13 workers on lead-based paint removal; providing supervision of the inmate workers by individuals trained in lead-based paint removal; and generally making protective gear available during the project. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844, 114 S. Ct. at 1982-83. And even accepting Moore’s allegation that during one week of two months the defendants gave him only a face shield and not a respirator, he has pointed to no evidence that the defendants were aware that applying paint stripper for a brief period of only one week without a respirator posed a substantial risk of serious harm. See Thomas, 614 F.3d at 1312. Because we conclude that Moore has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he suffered a violation of his constitutional rights, we decline to consider the district court’s additional finding that Moore did not show supervisory liability with regard to defendants Farquhar, Carter, and Allen. See Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999) (stating that a claim for supervisory liability fails where there is no underlying constitutional violation).