With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". interfered with and prevented him from receiving Nurse Fume’s recommended treatment for his asthma. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105, 97 S.Ct. 285; Durmer v. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 68 (3d Cir.1993). Even when taking as true Nurse Fume’s affidavit stating that she warned defendant that plaintiffs asthma could become worse or potentially life threatening, a reasonable jury cannot find that defendant acted with deliberate indifference. (D.I. 63, ex. A at ¶ 14) In particular, defendant could not have drawn an inference from Nurse Fume’s statement that a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff presently existed because she merely said plaintiffs asthma “could” worsen or become “potentially” life threatening. See Colburn v. Upper Darby Township, 946 F.2d 1017, 1024 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); (Id.) Therefore, sufficient evidence is

A: holding that icecovered steps did not present a high likelihood of harm or severity of harm
B: holding that supervisors were not hable because they possessed no information indicating a strong likelihood of unconstitutional conduct by their subordinate
C: holding that deliberate indifference is not the mere possibility a harm will occur rather a strong likelihood
D: recognizing that a case is ripe for determination if injury has occurred or is likely to occur the threat of harm must be direct and immediate rather than conjectural hypothetical or remote
C.