Corey H. Dennis v. Warden, Ware State Prison, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15145
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cv-00048-LGW-JEG
COREY H. DENNIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, WARE STATE PRISON,
STEPHEN STEELE,
JOHNNY PETERSON, CO,
Ware State Prison,
BRIGMAN MOORE,
CO, Ware State Prison,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(April 22, 2016)
Case: 14-15145 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Before HULL, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Corey Dennis, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
claims against defendants Warden Darrell Hart, Officer Johnny Peterson, and
Officer Brigman Moore, and grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant
Stephen Steele, in his civil rights lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
appeal, Dennis repeats the factual allegations in his complaint and argues that the
defendants are liable for deliberate indifference to Dennis’s serious medical needs.
As an initial matter, we have held that a “legal claim or argument that has
not been briefed before the court is deemed abandoned and its merits will not be
addressed.” Access Now, Inc. v. Sw Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir.
2004). On appeal, Dennis fails to address the dismissal of his claims against
defendants Warden Hart, Officer Moore, and Officer Peterson, therefore, any
arguments about those dismissals are abandoned. This leaves only the grant of
summary judgment as to defendant Steele.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment and apply
the same standard used by the district court. Burton v. Tampa Housing Auth., 271
F.3d 1274, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2001). Summary judgment is appropriate only if
there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
Case: 14-15145 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

3
U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986). In reviewing the district court’s
decision, we consider the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. Burton, 271 F.3d at 1277.
To succeed on a § 1983 action, “a plaintiff must show that he or she was
deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.” Griffin v.
City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001). The Eighth Amendment
governs the conditions under which convicted prisoners are confined and the
treatment they receive while in prison. Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1242 (11th
Cir. 2003). Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs violates
the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 291
(1976).
To show an objectively serious deprivation of medical care, the inmate must
demonstrate: (1) “an objectively serious medical need . . . that, if left unattended,
poses a substantial risk of serious harm,” and (2) “that the response made by public
officials to that need was poor enough to constitute an unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain, and not merely accidental inadequacy, negligence in diagnosis or
treatment, or even medical malpractice actionable under state law.” Taylor v.
Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2000) (alterations, citations, and quotation
marks omitted). An inmate must also show that the prison official acted with the
required subjective intent to punish by demonstrating: (1) “awareness of facts from
Case: 14-15145 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
exist[ed],” and (2) the drawing of this inference. Id. (alteration and quotation
marks omitted). Therefore, in total, a plaintiff must show four requirements: (1)
“an objectively serious need,” (2) “an objectively insufficient response to that
need,” (3) “subjective awareness of facts signaling the need,” and (4) “an actual
inference of required actions from those facts.” Id.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
affirm.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Dennis, he failed to present
evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Officer Steele was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Even assuming, as the parties
have, that Dennis’s epilepsy was a serious medical need, Dennis failed to show that
Officer Steele’s actions constituted an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.
See Taylor, 221 F.3d at 1258. At most, Dennis provides evidence, in the form of
his own deposition, that Officer Steele knew he had epilepsy, and that Dennis had
requested to be seen by “medical” after falling down the stairs. Dennis has not
shown that Officer Steele knew that the fall could cause Dennis to have a seizure,
or that Dennis told Officer Steele he felt as if he was going to have a seizure.
Moreover, although Dennis testified that Officer Steele placed him in a shower and
left him there for over an hour, where he had a seizure and harmed himself, he did
Case: 14-15145 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

5
not testify that Officer Steele had any knowledge that Dennis had a seizure in the
shower. Furthermore, Officer Steele provided affidavits from medical personnel at
the prison that their records indicated that, when Dennis was examined 10 hours
after the alleged incident, he did not have a bump on his head, or any other sign of
injury. As a result, at the most, Dennis provided evidence that Officer Steele was
arguably negligent in his failure to take him to medical after he fell down the stairs.
Such a claim of negligence is insufficient to support a § 1983 claim for deliberate
indifference. See Taylor, 221 F.3d at 1258. Because there were no genuine issues
of material fact, Officer Steele was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thus,
the district court properly granted summary judgment to Officer Steele.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 14-15145 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --