James Spencer Whitehead, Jr. v. Ga. Dept. of Corr. , 219 F. App'x 857 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 23, 2007
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 06-15029
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 03-00216-CV-CAR-5
JAMES SPENCER WHITEHEAD, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DR. ODERINDE, in his individual capacity,
KALU KALU, Doctor, in his individual capacity,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(January 23, 2007)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Prisoner James Spencer Whitehead, Jr., sued Tydus Meadows, warden of the
Men’s State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia (MSP); Clayton Tatum, a guard at MSP; Dr.
Bade Oderinde; and Dr. Kalu Kalu pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his
Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights. (R.1-16.) The district court granted
summary judgment to Tatum and Meadows but denied Oderinde and Kalu
(collectively, “the Doctors”) summary judgment as to the Eighth Amendment claims
against them. The Doctors bring this interlocutory appeal arguing that the district
court erred in denying them qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.
After a thorough review of the parties’ responses to this court’s jurisdictional
question and the record on appeal, we find that we have jurisdiction to hear this
interlocutory appeal. Considering the merits of the appeal, “[w]e accept as true all
facts the district court assumed when it denied summary judgment on qualified
immunity grounds.” See Badia v. City of Miami, 133 F.3d 1443, 1445 (11th Cir.
1998) (citations omitted). The district court adopted the recommendation of the
magistrate judge, saying, “[T]he Court agrees with the United States Magistrate Judge
that a jury could find that the Defendant doctors failed to even try to diagnose
Plaintiff’s condition over a period of more than two years, relying instead on
diagnoses that the treating doctors should have realized to be obviously incorrect. A
jury then could find that taking such an avenue represents ‘easier but less efficacious
2
treatment’ in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” (R.2-73 at1-2.) As stated by the
magistrate judge, “[i]t is clearly established that a delay in treating an inmate’s pain
can render defendants liable as if they had inflicted the pain themselves, thereby
becoming an Eighth Amendment violation.” (R.2-71 at 5.) (citing Brown v. Hughes,
894 F.2d 1533, 1538 (11th Cir. 1990)); see also McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248
(11th Cir. 1999). Therefore, qualified immunity does not entitle the Doctors to
judgment at this stage of the proceedings.
AFFIRMED.
3