Rebecca K. Yarbrough v. Iris Tatom, et al., No. 16-15905 (11th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-15905 Date Filed: 08/30/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-15905 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cv-00613-MCR-EMT REBECCA K. YARBROUGH, As personal representative of the estate of Brady Kent Stevenson, deceased, Plaintiff - Appellee, Cross Appellant, versus DAVID MORGAN, In his official capacity as sheriff of Escambia County, Florida, et al., Defendant – Appellee, IRIS TATOM, ARNP in her Individual capacity, BRANDI CLOUSER, RN in her individual capacity, ALECIA K. CRAFT, Case: 16-15905 Date Filed: 08/30/2017 Page: 2 of 3 RN in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellants. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ________________________ (August 30, 2017) Before WILSON and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and WOOD, ∗ District Judge. PER CURIAM: Defendants/Appellants Iris Tatom, Brandi Clouser, and Alecia Craft appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. “[W]e lack interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds where the sole issues on appeal are issues of evidentiary sufficiency.” Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1485 (11th Cir. 1996). Here, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity was based on its “find[ing] that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Tatom, Clouser, and Craft were deliberately indifferent to [the prisoner’s] serious medical need.” And the only issue raised by the defendants in their appellate brief is “[w]hether there was sufficient evidence to support a permissible inference as a matter of law that any of [the defendants] were deliberately ∗ Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 16-15905 Date Filed: 08/30/2017 Page: 3 of 3 indifferent to a known medical need.” Br. of Appellants at 2 (“Statement of the Issue”); see also id. at iii (“The appeal presents a factually complex question concerning whether there was evidence sufficient to defeat summary judgment …. The issue which arises is whether there was sufficient evidence of the subjective intent of the [defendants] to support an inference that any of … them was deliberately indifferent to a known serious medical need.”). Because the “sole issues on appeal are issues of evidentiary sufficiency,” Cottrell, 85 F.3d at 1485, we lack interlocutory appellate jurisdiction. DISMISSED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
