Muhammad v. Gilmore et al, No. 1:2020cv00279 - Document 77 (E.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION in re Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 3/3/2022. (swil) (c/s to pro se plaintiff)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Muhammad v. Gilmore et al Doc. 77 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Malcolm Muhammad, Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) LT. Gilmore,et aL, Defendants. ) ) ) ) l:20cv279(LO/IDD) MEMORANDUM OPINION In this civil-rights suit, see 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, plaintiff Malcolm Muhammad claims that while he was incarcerated at Sussex I State Prison (SISP), Unit Manager Jessica Adams, Medical Administrator Crystal Allen, and nurse O'Donald acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical need, and that Grievance Coordinator E. Witt committed unlawful First Amendment retaliation, when they interfered with Muhammad's ability to obtain special-sized shoes. Defendants Adams and Witt move for summary judgment.'[Dkt. No. 31]. Muhammad, who is proceeding pro se, has received the notice required by Local Civil Rule 7(K)and Roseboro v. Garrison. 528 F.2d 309(4th Cir. 1975), and he opposes the motion.[Dkt. Nos. 33, 39,40]. Because the undisputed evidence demonstrates that defendants Adams and Witt are entitled to judgment as a matter of law,the Court will grant their motion for summary judgment. I. Background AJ The Amended Complaint In the amended complaint Muhammad principally alleges that prison doctors have authorized him to obtain shoes in width size EEE with arch support, but the prison's commissary 'Allen has answered the complaint but has not filed dispositive briefing. O'Donald has yet to appear. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
