`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` [DO NOT PUBLISH]
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
` FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
` ________________________
`
` No. 12-12915
`Non-Argument Calendar
` ________________________
`
` D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cv-80122-WPD
`
`
`
`YAQUB JAMEEL FAHEEM,
`
`llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`
`
` versus
`
`ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH, INC., et al.,
`
`llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants,
`
`NINA GAMINARA, individually,
`
`llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.
`________________________
`
` Appeal from the United States District Court
` for the Southern District of Florida
` ________________________
`(December 28, 2012)
`
`Before PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`
`
`
`Case: 12-12915 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 2 of 4
`
`
`
`Yaqub Faheem, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the summary judgment
`
`against his complaint that Nina Gaminara, a nurse at the Palm Beach County
`
`Detention Center, violated his civil rights as a pretrial detainee under the
`
`Fourteenth Amendment. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Faheem argues that Gaminara acted
`
`with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by forging his signature to
`
`obtain his medical records instead of having him transported for an appointment he
`
`had scheduled with a specialist to treat his Hepatitis C and by prescribing
`
`medication to treat his elevated triglycerides and cholesterol that Gaminara knew
`
`or should have known would exacerbate liver damage. We affirm.
`
`We review a summary judgment de novo, and we consider the facts and
`
`draw reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the non-
`
`movant. Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2005). Summary
`
`judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that 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). “[G]enuine disputes of facts are those in which the evidence is
`
`such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant. For factual
`
`issues to be considered genuine, they must have a real basis in the record.” Mann
`
`v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
`
`marks omitted).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 12-12915 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 3 of 4
`
`
`
`The district court did not err when it entered summary judgment against
`
`Faheem’s complaint. Nurse Gaminara treated Faheem, who had a history of
`
`Hepatitis C, but “slightly” elevated liver enzymes, by ordering blood work to
`
`assess his liver and high cholesterol, regulating his diet and later prescribing Lopid
`
`to control his cholesterol, and ordering blood tests to monitor his liver. Faheem
`
`argues that Gaminara obtained his medical records to avoid sending him to a
`
`specialist, but Faheem fails to explain how his condition required the attention of a
`
`specialist. The affidavit of Dr. Chad Zawitz, a physician and medical expert,
`
`established that Gaminara adhered to the standard of care in her treatment of
`
`Faheem, including prescribing him Lopid. Faheem speculates that he had
`
`advanced liver disease and Lopid caused him increased knee pain and skin
`
`disorders, but test results and Dr. Zawitz’s affidavit established that Faheem
`
`exhibited none of the ailments ordinarily associated with advanced liver disease
`
`and the disease could not have been caused by administering Lopid to him.
`
`Faheem complained that Gaminara should have treated his Hepatitis C with the
`
`medication Interferon, but Dr. Zawitz averred that Interferon was contraindicated
`
`for inmates like Faheem who would not be detained long enough to complete the
`
`treatment. Even if we were to conclude that Gaminara was negligent in treating
`
`Faheem, negligence is not sufficient to establish deliberate indifference. See
`
`Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1245 (11th Cir. 2003).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 12-12915 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 4 of 4
`
`
`
`We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Gaminara.
`
`
`
`4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
