IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-40451
Summary Calendar
_____________________
HELEN FEARS, as Next of Kin of Gary Aderholt, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TERRY BOX, Sheriff of Collin County, Texas,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas
(4:95-CV-270)
_______________________________________________________
January 25, 1999
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Helen Fears, as next of kin to decedent Gary Aderholt, appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment for Defendant Terry Box, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Collin
County, Texas. While a pretrial detainee at Collin County Jail, Aderholt suffered a severe asthma
attack, which ultimately caused his tragic death. Fears filed this civil rights action against Sheriff
Box under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Collin County Jail policies and customs caused a
substantial delay in obtaining emergency medical treatment for Aderholt in violation of his due
process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
for the defendant, holding that (1) the policies complained of were facially constitutional because
they did not compel a substantial delay in receiving medical care; and (2) Fears failed to present
any summary judgment evidence that the policies were adopted with deliberate indifference to the
medical needs of pretrial detainees. We affirm.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, briefs, and authorities, we conclude that summary
judgment for the defendant was proper, essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s
order. The policies at issue are constitutional on their face and Fears has presented no summary
judgment evidence that the policies were adopted with deliberate indifference to the medical needs
of pretrial detainees. See, e.g., Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51, 54 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc)
(municipal liability for a constitutional violation is established by showing that a municipal policy
or custom was “adopted or maintained with objective deliberate indifference to the detainee’s
constitutional rights”) (emphasis omitted). The policies do not compel a constitutional violation
by preventing jail officers or nursing staff from obtaining immediate emergency medical care for
detainees. We also reject Fears’ contention that the jail’s emergency medical policy is “so riddled
with bureaucratic loops” that it “manifests defendant’s deliberate indifference to the serious
medical needs of pretrial detainees.” The alleged custom of requiring officers to notify the
medical staff of an emergency via the control room does not substantially delay emergency
medical treatment and certainly does not reflect deliberate indifference.
AFFIRMED.
2