Carlos Perdue v. Corizon Health Care Company, et al, No. 16-15727 (11th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-15727 Date Filed: 04/05/2018 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-15727 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 7:14-cv-02144-RDP-TMP CARLOS PERDUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BIBB COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY HEALTH CARE UNIT, Defendant, CORIZON HEALTH CARE COMPANY, CLABO, KIRK, HOOKS, Doctor, Optometrist, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (April 5, 2018) Case: 16-15727 Date Filed: 04/05/2018 Page: 2 of 3 Before JULIE CARNES, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Carlos Perdue, an Alabama prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Corizon Health Care Company, Dr. Michael Hooks, Nurse Patsy Clabo, and Nurse Sharon Kirk in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Smith v. LePage, 834 F.3d 1285, 1291 (11th Cir. 2016). Although we construe pro se briefs liberally, we deem abandoned issues not briefed on appeal. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). We will not address arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. Id. Purdue’s opening brief does not address the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and he has, therefore, abandoned his argument that this decision was error. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. To the extent that Perdue’s discussion of his claims in his reply brief can be construed as an argument that summary judgment was improper, we will not address an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief. See id. Moreover, even if Perdue’s abandonment were excused, our de novo review of the summary judgment record indicates that summary judgment was correctly granted below. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 2 Case: 16-15727 Date Filed: 04/05/2018 AFFIRMED. 3 Page: 3 of 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.