Plaintiffs Fred Hines and Geneva Hines appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment, on the basis of qualified immunity, for James Anderson, Superintendent at Parchman, Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). The plaintiffs’ civil rights suit stems from the suicide of their son, Clinton Hines, a prisoner then housed at Parchman. After a de novo review of the record, we affirm.
The plaintiffs argue that Anderson was deliberately indifferent to a dangerous condition created by Parchman’s “Pharmacy Distribution Program,” and thus violated Clinton Hines’s Eight Amendment rights. The evidence does not reflect Anderson’s personal involvement. See Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir.1983). Nor does it reflect that Anderson was involved in the implementation of the Pharmacy Distribution Program. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir.1987). Moreover, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that Anderson was subjectively aware either that Clinton Hines posed a substantial suicide risk or that the prison’s policies concerning prescription drugs posed a substantial risk of *766increased inmate actual or attempted suicide. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Accordingly, summary judgment was proper even if we were to adopt the views expressed in Judge Kravitch’s concurring opinion in Tittle v. Jefferson County Commission, 10 F.3d 1535, 1541 (11th Cir.1994). The alleged “ ‘failure to alleviate a significant risk that [the official] should have perceived, but did not’ is insufficient to show deliberate indifference.” Domino v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir.2001) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 838, 114 S.Ct. 1970).
AFFIRMED.