Dortch v. Crawford et al (INMATE 1), No. 2:2020cv00293 - Document 67 (M.D. Ala. 2023)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/31/2023. (hrr, )

Download PDF
Dortch v. Crawford et al (INMATE 1) Doc. 67 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION HAROLD L. DORTCH, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. NURSE CRAWFORD and TAHIR SIDDIQ, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20cv293-MHT (WO) OPINION Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Harold L. Dortch, a state prisoner, filed this lawsuit asserting that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to and unreasonably delayed care for several serious medical needs. the This lawsuit is now before the court on recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that defendants’ motions for summary judgment be granted and that no costs be taxed against There are no objections to the recommendation. Dortch. After an independent and de novo review of the record, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s Dockets.Justia.com recommendation should be adopted, though the court does not adopt the reasoning to the extent set forth below. As grounds indifference, for Dortch a finding contends of that, deliberate after he had received offsite surgery for a vascular injury to his arm received when he was stabbed by other inmates, defendant Tahir Siddiq prematurely removed the cast on his arm. The recommendation, relying on a declaration from Siddiq, finds that “the cast on his arm was still in place on August 28, 2020, upon his referral by Dr. Siddiq to a Recommendation free (Doc. world 65) doctor at Declaration (Doc. 53-1) at 5). 17 for follow-up.” (citing Siddiq However, a full review of the attached medical records appears to show that, on August 28, 2020, before he saw Siddiq, Dortch had been taken offsite to see a doctor who placed a cast on his left arm--which strongly suggests that Dortch did not have a cast on his arm when he went to the offsite appointment. See “Return from Offsite” Medical Record 2 (dated 8/20/20) (Doc. 53-1) at 120 (“Subjective statement of patient about what transpired: Seen Dr., Place Cast on L Arm”). show that, upon This document also appears to Dortch’s return from the outside medical visit, the nurse who filled out the “Return from Offsite” form scheduled Dortch to see Siddiq later that day. See id. (“Appointment date to see staff physician for review and follow up: 8/28/20”). record backs prematurely up Dortch’s removed his contention cast and physician had to replace it. the light most favorable to that that the This Siddiq offsite Taking the evidence in Dortch, the court must reject the part of the recommendation finding that the medical records confirm that Dortch’s cast was not prematurely removed. That said, the factual dispute in the record about whether the cast was removed change the outcome of the case. prematurely does not Dortch argues that Siddiq knew that removing the cast prematurely would 3 harm him; however, Dortch’s non-expert opinion of what Siddiq knew is not admissible evidence upon which the court can rely on summary judgment. cast prematurely negligent or could be incompetent, evidence from which conclude that, at the a While removing the reasonably Dortch has reasonable time Siddiq viewed not presented factfinder removed as the could cast prematurely, he did so with deliberate indifference: i.e., he knew that removing the case created a substantial risk of serious harm but did so anyway. Accordingly, the court agrees with the recommendation that summary judgment should be granted. An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 31st day of July, 2023. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.