USCA4 Appeal: 23-6473 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6473

KAREEM AKEEM OLAJUWON, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DOCTOR OFOGH; J. WOMACK, Lt., Mediko, PC, Liaison; ANTIONETTE IRVING, Sheriff, Head of Jail; STUART BROTH, Dentist, Mediko, PC; KYLA BROWN, RN, Mediko, PC, Director of Nursing,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

R. HUNT, Major, Supervisor of Jail Operations; DIXIE DELUTIS, Health Service Administrator, Mediko, PC,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00004-HEH-MRC)

Submitted: September 27, 2024 Decided: October 24, 2024

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6473 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 5

Kareem Akeem Olajuwon, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Taylor Denslow Brewer, MORAN REEVES & CONN, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Blaire Hawkins O’Brien, A. Winneberger, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6473 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Kareem Akeem Olajuwon, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders granting summary

judgment in favor of Defendants in his

action. Olajuwon alleged that

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they failed to

appropriately treat his bleeding gums while he was an inmate at Richmond City Justice

Center (“RCJC”). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, “review[ing] the

facts in the light most favorable to” the nonmoving party and “drawing all reasonable

inferences in his favor.” Dean v. Jones,

(4th Cir. 2021). 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). “A factual dispute is genuine only where the nonmovant’s version is supported

by sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find in [his] favor.” United States v.

8.929 Acres of Land in Arlington Cnty.,

(4th Cir. 2022) (internal

quotation marks and brackets omitted). Conversely, “[w]hen a party fails to establish the

existence of an element essential to that party’s case, there is no genuine issue of material

fact.” Perkins v. Int’l Paper Co.,

(4th Cir. 2019).

“It is beyond debate that a prison official’s deliberate indifference to an inmate’s

serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

Amendment.” Gordon v. Schilling,

(4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation

marks omitted). In order to establish an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim,

“the plaintiff is required to prove an objective component and a subjective component.”

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6473 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 4 of 5

“The objective element requires an objectively ‘serious’ medical condition.” Short v.

Hartman,

(4th Cir. 2023). “A condition is objectively serious if it is

diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or is so obvious that even a lay person

would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.”

(internal quotation marks

omitted). The subjective component “requires that the prison official acted with deliberate

indifference to inmate health or safety, meaning that the official had actual subjective

knowledge of both the inmate’s serious medical condition and the excessive risk posed by

the official’s action or inaction.”

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Olajuwon, we conclude that the

district court properly granted summary judgment to Defendants Brown, Womack, and

Irving. However, we conclude that the court erred in granting summary judgment to

Defendant Broth, a dentist who provided care to RCJC inmates. From October 2019

through December 2019, Olajuwon repeatedly complained that his gums were bleeding

heavily, that Broth’s prescribed treatment was not working, and that he was in pain.

Despite admitting in his declaration that he was not a periodontist and did not treat

periodontal disease in RCJC inmates, Broth attributed Olajuwon’s symptoms to

periodontal disease, continued the original treatment plan, and denied Olajuwon’s request

for a referral to an outside provider. Although Broth eventually ordered the referral to an

outside provider that ultimately resulted in Olajuwon’s diagnosis and treatment for cancer,

we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that the delay in obtaining the referral

amounted to deliberate indifference.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6473 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 5 of 5

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Brown,

Womack, and Irving. We vacate the court’s grant of summary judgment to Broth and

remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

5