Court Opinion

ID: 9410157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 16:01:04.099677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:55.597737
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13521    Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 07/20/2023   Page: 1 of 17

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-13521
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        JAMES W. PARSONS, III,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        SHERIFF OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA,
        ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, INC,

                                                   Defendants-Appellees.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                     D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cv-00806-AMM
USCA11 Case: 22-13521      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 07/20/2023      Page: 2 of 17

        2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13521

                             ____________________

        Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               In this civil rights case arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, James
        Parsons, III, appeals the district court’s order granting summary
        judgment in favor of Sheriﬀ Mark Pettway, who operates the Jeﬀer-
        son County Jail in Alabama, and Advanced Correctional
        Healthcare, Inc. (“ACH”), the medical services provider at the Jail.
        Mr. Parsons, who suﬀers from multiple sclerosis, sued Sheriﬀ
        Pettway and ACH for cruel and unusual punishment because he
        was deprived of his medications during the two periods he was in-
        carcerated at the Jail in 2018 and 2019. The district court denied
        Mr. Parsons’ claims primarily because he failed to establish that any
        medication was withheld when he was incarcerated in 2018, and he
        conceded during his deposition that he was not alleging any dam-
        ages for his incarceration in 2019. After review of the parties’ briefs
        and the record, we aﬃrm.
                                           I
               We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judg-
        ment and apply the same standards used by the district court. See
        Acevedo v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 357 F.3d 1244, 1246–47 (11th Cir.
        2004). We draw all inferences and review all evidence in the light
        most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Rodriguez v. City of
        Doral, 863 F.3d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir. 2017). Summary judgment
        should be granted only if the moving party demonstrates “that
USCA11 Case: 22-13521        Document: 37-1        Date Filed: 07/20/2023       Page: 3 of 17

        22-13521                 Opinion of the Court                              3

        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). A
        genuine issue of material fact exists if “the nonmoving party has
        produced evidence such that a reasonable factfinder could return a
        verdict in its favor.” Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assoc., Inc., 276
        F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001).
                                             II
                                             A
               Mr. Parsons was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in approx-
        imately 2008. Multiple sclerosis is a chronic and progressive neu-
        rologic illness that physically manifests in lesions on the brain.1
              On June 7, 2018, Mr. Parsons was incarcerated at the Jeﬀer-
        son County Jail in Alabama. A few days later, on June 11, 2018, he
        was seen at the Jail’s clinic by Dr. Pritchett for hypertension and
        multiple sclerosis. Mr. Parsons complained that he had burned the
        bottom of his feet when running on asphalt, but his “biggest con-
        cern” was his multiple sclerosis.
                Dr. Pritchett noted during this visit that Mr. Parsons took
        Lemtrada—an intravenous medication that is administered over
        the course of several days every twelve months—for his multiple
        sclerosis. Dr. Pritchett observed that Mr. Parsons was administered
        his last dosage of Lemtrada around September of 2017. Based on
        the manufacturer’s instructions, Lemtrada should be administered

        1
         A letter from Mr. Parsons’ neurologist, Dr. Diethelm, confirms that Mr. Par-
        sons suffered from multiple sclerosis and was treated with Lemtrada.
USCA11 Case: 22-13521      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 07/20/2023     Page: 4 of 17

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13521

        no earlier than twelve months after the last dosage of the prior
        treatment cycle. Mr. Parsons, therefore, was not eligible for his
        next dose of Lemtrada until September of 2018.
               Following his visit with Dr. Pritchett, Mr. Parsons was
        started on Bactrim to prevent an infection in his feet, as well as
        Prednisone, a steroid, for multiple sclerosis and ocular neuritis in
        the left eye. Dr. Pritchett also prescribed Tylenol for pain and
        Norvasc for blood pressure management. The Jail Medication Ad-
        ministration Record reﬂects that Mr. Parsons was given these med-
        ications as prescribed by Dr. Pritchett.
                                          B
                When Mr. Parsons was incarcerated in 2018, he submitted
        one grievance. Speciﬁcally, on June 24, 2018, Mr. Parsons com-
        plained that he was a multiple sclerosis patient and that his request
        to rinse himself after a bathroom accident was ignored. A few days
        later, on June 29, 2018, Mr. Parsons “bonded out” of the jail, and
        he was remanded to his home with an electronic ankle bracelet.
                That same day, however, Mr. Parsons was admitted to the
        hospital due to a possible multiple sclerosis relapse. Dr. Diethelm,
        who had treated Mr. Parsons since 2015, noted that Mr. Parsons
        “presented to [him] with complaints of worsening numbness, tin-
        gling, weakness in the bilateral lower extremities as well as left eye
        vision loss.” At the hospital, Mr. Parsons was started on Solu-
        Medrol, a medicine similar to the steroid he had received orally at
        the jail. An MRI of the brain and C-spine, both with and without
        contrast, was administered, but it revealed “no enhancing lesion.”
USCA11 Case: 22-13521     Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 07/20/2023    Page: 5 of 17

        22-13521              Opinion of the Court                       5

        The medication of Solu-Medrol was then stopped, and Mr. Parsons
        was discharged from the hospital. Mr. Parsons received various
        medications when he was discharged—Amlodipine, Norco, To-
        radol, Omeprazole, Imitrex, and Eﬀexor—but none of those med-
        ications were needed to further treat his multiple sclerosis.
              In 2019, Mr. Parsons violated his bond conditions, so he re-
        turned to the Jeﬀerson County Jail for approximately seven
        months. During his incarceration in 2019, Mr. Parsons submitted
        twenty-three grievances. Two of those grievances were related to
        withheld medications, and two were related more generally to his
        multiple sclerosis condition. The rest of his grievances were not
        medically related.
               Of note, in the grievance Mr. Parsons submitted on August
        28, 2019, he complained that his “medicine was brought up [ ] by
        [his] mother,” but he had not “gotten it.” The medications pro-
        vided by Mr. Parsons’ mother were Ajovy, Amlodipine, Metopro-
        lol, Omeprazole, Trazadone, and Norco. Although Mr. Parsons
        claimed that his mother supplied his medications to Jail oﬃcials,
        who rejected them, none of the medications supplied by Mr. Par-
        sons’ mother included “any medication for the daily treatment of
        [multiple sclerosis].”
              Mr. Parsons was subsequently released during the COVID-
        19 pandemic and is no longer incarcerated.
                                        C
              In 2020, Mr. Parsons ﬁled a four-count class action complaint
        under § 1983 against Sheriﬀ Pettway and ACH for damages and
USCA11 Case: 22-13521     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 07/20/2023    Page: 6 of 17

        6                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13521

        injunctive relief because they withheld his multiple sclerosis medi-
        cation. Counts I and II sought damages and injunctive relief from
        Sheriﬀ Pettway, while Counts III and IV sought the same relief
        from ACH.
               Mr. Parsons’ complaint speciﬁcally alleged that the defend-
        ants (1) ignored his medical requests forms and grievances regard-
        ing withheld medication, (2) withheld his medication after his
        mother “delivered it to the jailers,” and (3) withheld his necessary
        medication even after receiving “written conﬁrmation” from his
        doctor regarding the likelihood of a multiple sclerosis relapse. Mr.
        Parsons further alleged that because the defendants withheld his
        medication, he suﬀered “signiﬁcant numbness in his limbs and ex-
        tremities, making it diﬃcult for him to walk” and that a post-cus-
        tody MRI revealed “several lesions.”
                                         D
               After the ﬁling of Mr. Parsons’ complaint, Sheriﬀ Pettway
        ﬁled a motion to dismiss arguing that he was entitled to qualiﬁed
        immunity on all claims. The district court granted in part and de-
        nied in part Sheriﬀ Pettway’s motion. The district court dismissed
        Count I to the extent that Mr. Parsons alleged a theory of “personal
        participation.” The district court, however, ruled that Sheriﬀ
        Pettway was not entitled to qualiﬁed immunity to the extent that
        Count I alleged a theory of “supervisory liability.” The district
        court also dismissed Count II as moot because Mr. Parsons was no
        longer in the custody of the Jeﬀerson County Jail.
USCA11 Case: 22-13521        Document: 37-1       Date Filed: 07/20/2023       Page: 7 of 17

        22-13521                 Opinion of the Court                             7

               During discovery, Mr. Parsons made three critical conces-
        sions. First, he admitted that since he received his annual Lemtrada
        injection in September of 2017, he would not have been eligible for
        a new injection until September of 2018—two months after his ﬁrst
        period of incarceration at the Jail ended. Second, he conceded that
        there was “no mention of not receiving medication” in the only
        grievance that he ﬁled during his 2018 incarceration. Finally, he
        admitted that he was not alleging that any damages occurred dur-
        ing his second incarceration at the Jail in 2019. 2
                After discovery closed, Sheriﬀ Pettway and ACH ﬁled their
        respective motions for summary judgment. The district court
        granted Sheriﬀ Pettway’s and ACH’s motions for summary judg-
        ment as to claims arising from Mr. Parsons’ 2018 and 2019 incar-
        cerations, and dismissed as moot Mr. Parsons’ claim for injunctive
        relief against ACH. Signiﬁcantly, the district court concluded that
        Mr. Parsons had not established that any medication that he should
        have received during his 2018 incarceration was withheld. The dis-
        trict court also concluded that because Mr. Parsons testiﬁed during
        his deposition that he was not claiming he suﬀered any damages
        during his 2019 incarceration, he failed to “prove an essential ele-
        ment of his claim.”
               This appeal followed.

        2
         Mr. Parsons also informed the district court that he “w[ould] not be moving
        for class certification.”
USCA11 Case: 22-13521        Document: 37-1        Date Filed: 07/20/2023        Page: 8 of 17

        8                         Opinion of the Court                     22-13521

                                             III
                Mr. Parsons argues that the district court erred in granting
        summary judgment in favor of ACH and Sheriff Pettway. See Ap-
        pellant’s Br. at 14. According to Mr. Parsons, the district court
        erred because he “did not abandon his claim and he suffered pain
        from not having his medication.” Id. at 15. Mr. Parsons also argues
        that the district court erred in holding that Sheriff Pettway was en-
        titled to qualified immunity. Id. at 23.
               Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Parsons,
        we agree with the district court that ACH and Sheriff Pettway were
        not deliberately indifferent to Mr. Parsons’ multiple sclerosis illness
        by withholding his necessary medications during his incarceration
        in 2018 and 2019. We therefore affirm.
                                             A
               The Eighth Amendment prohibits “deliberate indiﬀerence
        to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
        97, 105 (1976). 3 To establish a claim for deliberate indifference to a
        medical need, a plaintiﬀ must establish “(1) a serious medical need;
        (2) the defendants’ deliberate indiﬀerence to that need; and (3) cau-
        sation between that indiﬀerence and the plaintiﬀ’s injury.” Mann
        v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1306–07 (11th Cir. 2009).

        3
          Mr. Parsons was a pretrial detainee rather than a convicted prisoner. His
        claims are governed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-
        ment, which “guarantees pretrial detainees the right to basic necessities that
        the Eighth Amendment guarantees convicted persons.” Gish v. Thomas, 516
        F.3d 952, 954 (11th Cir. 2008).
USCA11 Case: 22-13521         Document: 37-1         Date Filed: 07/20/2023         Page: 9 of 17

        22-13521                   Opinion of the Court                                9

               Here, as the district court noted, the parties did not dispute
        that Mr. Parsons’ multiple sclerosis constituted a serious medical
        need. See D.E. 92 at 17. Rather, based on the arguments presented
        by the parties and considered by the district court, only the second
        and third elements—deliberate indifference and causation—are at
        issue in this appeal. As we explain in more detail below, we con-
        clude that Mr. Parsons failed to establish those two elements dur-
        ing the two periods that he was incarcerated at the Jefferson
        County Jail.4
               We conduct our analysis in chronological order, so we begin
        with Mr. Parsons’ incarceration in 2018 and then turn to his incar-
        ceration in 2019.
                                               1
               As to Mr. Parsons’ 2018 incarceration, the district court con-
        cluded that Mr. Parsons failed to establish that either defendant
        acted with deliberate indiﬀerence because he did not show that any
        medication was withheld. See D.E. 92 at 18. The district court ex-
        plained that Mr. Parsons (1) was not eligible for a Lemtrada injec-
        tion, (2) received all medications listed on the Jail Medication Ad-
        ministration record as prescribed, and (3) conceded that the only

        4
          Mr. Parsons does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his claim for
        injunctive relief as moot because he has been released from Jefferson County
        Jail. He has therefore abandoned any challenge to this aspect of the district
        court’s order. See Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047, 1066 (11th Cir. 2012) (explain-
        ing that issues not raised in the initial brief are abandoned).
USCA11 Case: 22-13521     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 07/20/2023     Page: 10 of 17

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13521

        grievance he ﬁled during his 2018 incarceration contained no men-
        tion that he was not receiving his medications. Id. at 18–19.
               The district court committed no error in concluding that
        Mr. Parsons failed to establish that he did not receive his multiple
        sclerosis medication during his 2018 incarceration. As the district
        court observed, there was no dispute that ACH had subjective
        knowledge of Mr. Parsons’ multiple sclerosis and the risk of with-
        holding his medication. See id. at 18. The undisputed evidence in
        the record, which Mr. Parsons does not contest on appeal, how-
        ever, demonstrates that he failed to establish that any necessary
        medication was withheld.
               First, Mr. Parsons’ multiple sclerosis was treated with an an-
        nual Lemtrada injection. And Mr. Parsons conceded that he had
        received his last injection in September 2017 and he was not eligible
        for a new Lemtrada injection until September 2018—two months
        after he was released from the jail. See D.E. 71-1 at 23, D.E. 77 ¶ 6,
        D.E. 85 ¶ 6, D.E. 86 ¶ 3.
               Second, Mr. Parsons’ multiple sclerosis was treated, per Dr.
        Pritchett’s notes, with anti-inﬂammatory medications such as ibu-
        profen. Mr. Parsons testiﬁed that he received Tylenol “here and
        there” during his incarceration. See D.E. 71-1 at 13.
               Third, according to the Jail Medication Administration Rec-
        ord, Mr. Parsons received all the medications he was prescribed by
        Dr. Pritchett, including a medication (Prednisone) for his multiple
        sclerosis. See D.E. 70-6, D.E. 70-7. Indeed, Mr. Parsons admitted
        that his only grievance ﬁled during his 2018 incarceration did not
USCA11 Case: 22-13521     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 07/20/2023     Page: 11 of 17

        22-13521               Opinion of the Court                        11

        contain any references to any issues related to the withholding of
        his multiple sclerosis medication. See D.E. 71-1 at 16.
               Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Par-
        sons, he failed to establish that ACH and Sheriff Pettway were de-
        liberately indifferent to his medical needs by withholding his nec-
        essary medications during his incarceration in 2018. Accordingly,
        the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in fa-
        vor of the defendants on Mr. Parsons’ claim based on his 2018 in-
        carceration.
                                          2
                As to Mr. Parsons’ 2019 incarceration, the district court con-
        cluded that Mr. Parsons was unable to prove an essential element
        of his claim because during his deposition he “unambiguously dis-
        claim[ed] any claim for damages during his 2019 incarceration.”
        D.E. 92 at 15. The district court explained that Mr. Parsons an-
        swered “no” when he was asked during his deposition if he was
        “alleging any damages occurred while [he was] in [jail] during the
        second incarceration?” Id. (quoting D.E. 71-1 at 19). Thus, the dis-
        trict court concluded that because Mr. Parsons was not claiming
        damages for his 2019 incarceration, he was unable to prove an es-
        sential element of his § 1983 claim. See id. at 16.
               A claim under § 1983 “requires proof of an affirmative causal
        connection between the actions taken by a particular person under
        color of state law and the constitutional deprivation.” LaMarca v.
        Turner, 995 F.2d 1526, 1538 (11th Cir. 1993) (quotation marks omit-
        ted). As a result, § 1983 “focuses our inquiry on whether an
USCA11 Case: 22-13521     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 07/20/2023     Page: 12 of 17

        12                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13521

        official’s acts or omissions were the cause—not merely a contrib-
        uting factor—of the constitutionally infirm condition.” Id.
                Common law tort principles of damages and causation apply
        in the § 1983 context. See Jackson v. Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156, 1168 (11th
        Cir. 2000). Thus, “[f]or damages to be proximately caused by a
        constitutional tort, a plaintiff must show that, except for that con-
        stitutional tort, such injuries and damages would not have oc-
        curred and further that such injuries and damages were the reason-
        ably foreseeable consequences of the tortious acts or omissions in
        issue.” Id.
                The district court did not err in granting ACH’s and Sheriﬀ
        Pettway’s motions for summary judgment to the extent that Mr.
        Parsons’ claims for damages were premised on conduct that oc-
        curred during his second incarceration in 2019. Although Mr. Par-
        sons filed two grievances stating that he was not receiving his med-
        ication, see D.E. 71-1 at 128, 133, he testified during his deposition
        that he was not alleging any damages from the period of his second
        incarceration in 2019, see id. at 19. We agree with the district court
        that this concession was fatal to Mr. Parsons’ claims for damages
        during his 2019 incarceration.
               Mr. Parsons argues that the district court went “too far” in
        concluding that he abandoned his damages claim. See Appellant’s
        Br. at 23. According to Mr. Parsons, the district court erred in in-
        terpreting his deposition testimony because he “did not literally say
        that he had no ‘damages’ during his conﬁnement in 2019.” Id. at
        18. Mr. Parsons claims instead that “he said he was not alleging
USCA11 Case: 22-13521     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 07/20/2023    Page: 13 of 17

        22-13521               Opinion of the Court                       13

        that he was damaged in 2019” and that he “testiﬁed that he consid-
        ered both periods of incarceration to have been all the same to
        him.” Id. Thus, Mr. Parsons claims that the district court failed to
        draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. See id. We disagree
        with Mr. Parsons’ argument.
               The district court did not make an erroneous inference, as
        Mr. Parsons contends. Id. at 22. Rather, the district court relied on
        Mr. Parsons’ deposition testimony in which he said, as he concedes
        on appeal, that “he was not alleging that he was damaged in 2019.”
        Id. See also D.E. 171-1 at 19 (Q: “And did you have any – are you
        alleging – it’s not brought up in your Complaint about the second
        incarceration, so are you alleging any damages occurred while you
        were in there during the second incarceration?” A: “No.”). This
        testimony, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Par-
        sons, establishes that he failed to prove an essential element of his
        claim—an injury proximately caused by a constitutional tort.
        Without any allegation or evidence that he suﬀered any damages
        caused by the defendants’ alleged constitutional violation during
        his 2019 incarceration, Mr. Parsons’ § 1983 claim fails.
               Mr. Parsons tries to minimize the signiﬁcance of his deposi-
        tion testimony by claiming that he is a “layperson” who did not
        understand the legal signiﬁcance of the word damages. See Appel-
        lant’s Reply Br. at 6. Mr. Parsons’ reliance on his status as a “lay-
        person” is unpersuasive because when he was asked the question
        about his damages during his incarceration in 2019, he did not ask
        for any clariﬁcation and his attorney did not raise any objection.
USCA11 Case: 22-13521     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 07/20/2023     Page: 14 of 17

        14                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13521

        See D.E. 71-1 at 19. His testimony was clear and unequivocal—he
        was not alleging any damages occurred during his second incarcer-
        ation. See id.
               Mr. Parsons’ attempt to split hairs about his deposition testi-
        mony, without pointing to any evidence directly contradicting that
        testimony, fails to create a genuine issue of material fact as to his
        damages or injuries caused by the defendants’ withholding of his
        medications during his second incarceration in 2019. Although Mr.
        Parsons claims that he also “suﬀered pain caused by the lack of
        medication,” his reference to having suﬀered pain is insuﬃcient to
        create a genuine issue of material fact. Appellant’s Br. at 18. Dur-
        ing his 100-page deposition the word “pain” was only mentioned
        once. See D.E. 71-1 at 18. See also Whitehead v. BBVA Compass Bank,
        979 F.3d 1327, 1328–29 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[M]ere conclusions and
        unsupported factual allegations are legally insuﬃcient to defeat a
        summary judgment motion.”) (quoting Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d
        1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)).
               Additionally, none of the two declarations Mr. Parsons sub-
        mitted in opposition to the defendants’ motions for summary judg-
        ment—one of which was his own—contradicted the concession he
        made during his deposition. See D.E. 83-1, D.E. 83-2. In fact, Mr.
        Parsons’ declaration is completely silent regarding the damages or
        injuries he suﬀered as a result of the defendants’ alleged constitu-
        tional violation of withholding his multiple sclerosis medicine in
        2019. See D.E. 83-2. Consequently, Mr. Parsons’ vague and
USCA11 Case: 22-13521        Document: 37-1        Date Filed: 07/20/2023        Page: 15 of 17

        22-13521                  Opinion of the Court                              15

        conclusory reference to pain is insuﬃcient to defeat summary judg-
        ment. See Whitehead, 979 F.3d at 1328–29. 5
              Finally, Mr. Parsons relies on a Hail Mary to avoid the conse-
        quence of the concession he made during his deposition. He
        claims that the defendants did not assert “abandonment” as a
        ground for summary judgment, but that argument fails as well.
        Appellant’s Br. at 23.
                 According to Mr. Parsons, “a ground that no one urged in
        support of summary judgment is not a ground that can support
        summary judgment.” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 8. This argument
        lacks merit. The district court explicitly stated in its order that “De-
        fendants allege that in Mr. Parsons’s deposition, he abandoned any
        claims relating to his 2019 incarceration.” D.E. 92 at 10 (citing D.E.
        76 ¶ 3, D.E. 77 ¶ 3). Sheriﬀ Pettway’s summary of the undisputed
        facts speciﬁcally referenced Mr. Parsons’ deposition testimony
        where he disclaimed having suﬀered any damages during his 2019
        incarceration. See D.E. 76 ¶ 3. And ACH’s reply in support of its
        motion for summary judgment argued that “[t]he Complaint
        makes no mention of the 2019 incarceration, or any claims related
        to it . . . Parsons testiﬁed that he has no claim for damages related
        to his 2019 incarceration.” D.E. 87 at 14. Thus, Mr. Parsons’

        5
         Although Mr. Parsons asserted in his statement of undisputed facts submitted
        in his opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment that with-
        out medication his multiple sclerosis “causes him to have pain,” that statement
        was never made in Mr. Parsons’ declaration. Compare D.E. 84 at 4 ¶ 1, with D.E.
        83-2 at 2.
USCA11 Case: 22-13521        Document: 37-1         Date Filed: 07/20/2023         Page: 16 of 17

        16                         Opinion of the Court                       22-13521

        argument that the district court “sua sponte concluded that [he] had
        abandoned his claim for the mistreatment he endured in 2019” is in-
        accurate. See Appellant’s Reply Br. at 6 (emphasis in the original). 6
              Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting sum-
        mary judgment in favor of ACH and Sheriﬀ Pettway.
                                               B
                We next consider the district court’s ruling on supervisory
        liability as to ACH and Sheriﬀ Pettway. The district court ruled
        that ACH and Sheriﬀ Pettway were both entitled to summary judg-
        ment because Mr. Parsons had failed to establish any underlying
        violation of a constitutional right. See D.E. 92 at 19–20 (citing Lyons
        v. City of Abbeville, Alabama, No. 21-13610, 2022 WL 3703821, at *3
        (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2022)). As such, the district court concluded that
        Mr. Parsons could not maintain any claim of supervisory liability
        under § 1983 against ACH and Sheriﬀ Pettway. See id.
               Mr. Parsons does not raise any argument challenging this
        part of the district court’s order. Instead, he argues that “[t]he dis-
        trict court erred by holding that Sheriﬀ Pettway was entitled to

        6
          Even if we assume that the defendants did not raise “abandonment” as an
        argument before the district court, Mr. Parsons acknowledges, as he must, that
        “this Court can aﬃrm on any grounds that would support the judgment of
        the court below.” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 8. See Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338, 1346
        (11th Cir. 2022) (“We may affirm summary judgment on any ground sup-
        ported by the record.”). Considering that our rationale for aﬃrming the dis-
        trict court’s summary judgment order with respect to Mr. Parsons’ damages
        claims is not based on “abandonment,” but on other grounds supported by
        the record, Mr. Parsons’ argument can be rejected on this basis alone.
USCA11 Case: 22-13521      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 07/20/2023     Page: 17 of 17

        22-13521               Opinion of the Court                         17

        qualiﬁed immunity.” Appellant’s Br. at 23. Mr. Parsons’ argument,
        however, misses the mark by a wide margin. The district court did
        not reach qualiﬁed immunity given that it found that no constitu-
        tional violation had occurred. Thus, considering that Mr. Parsons
        essentially failed to raise any argument challenging the supervisory
        liability portion of the district court’s order, he has abandoned this
        issue. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680-81
        (11th Cir. 2014) (“A party can abandon an issue on appeal by failing
        to ‘plainly and prominently’ address it in his opening brief.”).
               Nevertheless, the district court did not err in concluding that
        neither ACH nor Sheriff Pettway was subject to supervisory liabil-
        ity under § 1983 as a matter of law. Mr. Parsons simply failed to
        establish any underlying violation of a constitutional right by a su-
        pervisee. See Paez v. Mulvey, 915 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2019)
        (“[T]here can be no supervisory liability . . . if there was no under-
        lying constitutional violation.”) (internal quotation marks omitted)
        (quoting Gish, 516 F.3d at 955). See also Myers v. Bowman, 713 F.3d
        1319, 1328 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[A] supervisor may not be held liable
        under section 1983 unless the supervised official committed an un-
        derlying violation of a constitutional right.”).
                                          IV
              We affirm the district court’s order granting summary judg-
        ment in favor of ACH and Sheriff Pettway.
               AFFIRMED.