effect, and Plaintiff has provided no evidence to establish there was any detrimental effect from the delay. Finally, even under Plaintiffs version of the facts, Defendants did not disregard a substantial risk to Morabito, nor did Defendants play any part in delaying Morabi-to’s treatment. When Defendants arrived for their shift, Morabito was already on the schedule to see the jail’s medical staff. Presumably, Defendants had the capability to summon emergency medical care, but there is nothing in the record that suggests emergency care was necessary. A delay of seven hours, especially when the delay was out of the control of Defendants, in cases like these will not support a constitutional claim for denial of medical care. See, e.g., Santiago v. Ringle, 734 F.3d 585, 592 (6th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). y. The judgment of the district court denying
holding reasonable sixday delay holding that a difference of medical opinion was insufficient as a matter of law to establish deliberate indifference holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable holding that prescription delay was not violation because plaintiff could not establish detrimental effect of delay in treatment holding that a twoday delay was insufficient to establish deliberate indifference and citing cases where no deliberate indifference was found after a sixteenday delay a sixday delay and a threemonth delay