Sheneka Nobles v. Corrections Corp. of America ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 12, 2009
No. 08-14509
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 07-00288-CV-4-SPM
SHENEKA NOBLES, In her capacity as Personal
Representative for the Estate of Emma Nobles,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(May 12, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
I. BACKGROUND
Sheneka Nobles is the daughter of Emma Nobles. Sheneka Nobles, in her
capacity as the personal representative of Emma Nobles’s estate, sued Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA) in state court. The one-count complaint pled a claim
for wrongful death and alleged that Emma Nobles died of sepsis and organ failure as
a result of CCA’s negligence while Emma Nobles was an inmate at Gadsden
Correctional Facility in Florida. CCA removed the suit to federal court and moved
to dismiss it pursuant to Chapter 766, Florida Statutes, which requires plaintiffs
bringing claims for medical malpractice to comply with pre-suit administrative
procedures.
The district court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
The court found that Plaintiff had not complied with the statutory requirements of §§
766.106 and 766.203, Florida Statutes, and therefore dismissed the claim to the extent
that it sought to hold CCA liable under a medical negligence standard of care.
However, the court held that the complaint contained “sufficient allegations to state
a claim for ordinary negligence in failure to secure appropriate medical treatment for
Emma Nobles” and allowed the case to go forward on that ordinary negligence
theory. (R.1-33 at 2.)
2
After discovery, CCA filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court
granted the motion, finding that Plaintiff had presented no evidence upon which a
reasonable jury could base a finding that CCA failed to meet the duty of care required
of prison officials in providing Emma Nobles access to health care. (R.4-62.)
II. ISSUE ON APPEAL AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Sheneka Nobles appeals, arguing that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment to CCA on her ordinary negligence claim. She does not appeal
the district court’s dismissal of her claim to the extent that it relied on medical
malpractice. Instead, she argues that there was, in fact, no medical malpractice
because Emma Nobles was denied medical care of her MRSA infection, the infection
that she argues caused Emma Nobles’s death.
CCA defends the judgment, arguing that the record demonstrates that there is
no genuine issue of material fact that Emma Nobles was provided medical care and,
therefore, CCA was not negligent.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment by applying
the same legal standards used by the district court. See, e.g., Hilburn v. Murata Elecs.
N. Am., Inc., 181 F.3d 1220, 1225 (11th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is
appropriate where “‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving
3
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of the
Univ. Sys. of Ga., 247 F.3d 1262, 1271 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)).
IV. DISCUSSION
The district court properly identified the applicable duty of care owed by prison
officials to incarcerated individuals. “[A] prison official ‘will seldom be required to
do more than give such first aid as he reasonably can, and take reasonable steps to
turn the sick [person] over to a physician, or to those who will look after [the person]
and see that medical assistance is obtained.’” (R.4-62 at 3) (quoting Ferguson v.
Perry, 593 So. 2d 273, 277 n.5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (other citations omitted)). And,
the district court found the “undisputed facts in this case show that Emma Nobles was
given regular access to medical care by both prison medical staff as well as outside
consultants throughout her term of incarceration. There are hundreds of pages of
medical records documenting the treatment and examinations that Emma Nobles
received.” (R.4-62 at 3.)
Plaintiff argues that the district court erred by failing to recognize that the
medical care Emma Nobles was given was confined to treatment for her diabetes and
that the record demonstrates that Emma Nobles was actually denied medical care for
her MRSA infection. After review of the evidence before the district court at the time
4
of summary judgment, we find that there is no genuine dispute of material fact in this
case. Emma Nobles was seen and treated by medical staff on numerous occasions
throughout her incarceration at Gadsden Correctional Facility for conditions other
than her diabetes, including an abscess and skin lesions. The evidence presented by
Plaintiff, including the affidavit of Rhonda Kennell and evidence regarding general
conditions at Gadsden Correctional Facility cited in Appellant’s brief, does not raise
a genuine issue of material fact about Emma Nobles’s access to medical treatment.
We find no error in the district court’s finding that no reasonable jury could
find CCA negligent. Therefore, we find no error in the grant of summary judgment
in favor of CCA.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
5