United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. Bredar, United States District Judge.
response to these consolidated cases, defendants filed
motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. ECF 24 and 27.
Shortly after defendants filed their dispositive motions,
counsel entered his appearance on behalf of plaintiff and
moved for an extension of time to and including July 26,
2017, in which to file an opposition response. ECF 30.
Although the motion was granted, the dispositive motions
remain unopposed. ECF 31. No hearing is required to address
the matters pending. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.
2016). For the reasons that follow, the unopposed
motions shall be granted.
Don Crudup, an inmate committed to the custody of the
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and
confined at Eastern Correctional Institution (ECI), asserts
that on September 1, 2016, his prescribed cane was taken from
him by the facility administrator for ECI-Annex, Darryl
Webster. ECF 1 at p. 3. As a result, Crudup claims he injured
his right leg. Id.
provides what he asserts is a verbatim copy of an incident
report written by Officer Tyndall documenting the
circumstances under which his cane was confiscated. ECF 1 at
pp. 5- 6. Tyndall was assigned to escort Crudup and informed
Crudup that he was going to confiscate the homemade shorts he
was wearing and told him he had to wear state-issued jeans.
Id. at p. 5. Crudup refused to wear the jeans
despite being ordered to do so three times. Id.
During this encounter, Tyndall relates that Webster came onto
the housing unit and began to inquire about Crudup's
cane. Id. at p. 6. Crudup produced paperwork
indicating he had been prescribed the cane by medical staff,
but Webster was told by medical staff that Crudup did not
have a medical order for a cane. Id. Consequently,
Webster confiscated the cane. Id.
further avers that an additional report written by Officer C.
Fontaine indicates that he was given a direct order by
Webster to retrieve a cane from Crudup. ECF 1 at p. 7.
Fontaine stated that Crudup refused several orders to
relinquish the cane and that force was “almost used by
FA Webster and [Fontaine]” to recover the cane.
Id. Fontaine then allegedly wrote that Crudup told
Webster, “you can stick that cane up your ass.”
states that Fontaine's report does not mention a struggle
“back and forwards” between himself and Webster
“while [Crudup] was handcuffed from behind threw (sic)
this incident.” ECF 1 at p. 8. Crudup also maintains
there is a discrepancy among the reports regarding who gave
him a direct order to relinquish the cane and that Fontaine
left out information about Webster attacking him and pulling
the cane away. Id.
supplemental complaint,  Crudup claims that after Webster took
his cane he made a request for a replacement cane to the
medical provider, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and it took
41 days to receive another cane. ECF 4 at p. 3. Crudup states
that when he requested the cane, “the provider stated
that the facility administrator Mr. Webster stated for me not
to have this.” Id. Crudup claims that the
response “puts them in error of negligence for not
providing medical equipment.” Id. He names
only Deborah Tabulov as the defendant for this claim.
Id. at p. 1.
further alleges in a second supplement that Tyndall's
Notice of Infraction and his testimony during the
disciplinary adjustment hearing differed regarding whether he
saw paperwork stating that Crudup had a medical condition
requiring his use of a cane. ECF 6 at pp. 1-2. Crudup states
that “[i]t's clear to see that untruthfulness
occurred during [Tyndall's] report to cover up what he
saw during the incident.” Id. Tyndall's
Notice of Infraction indicates that “Crudup produced
the paperwork” that Webster requested to establish that
Crudup had a medical order of a cane, but that “Webster
stated that medical did not have.” ECF 6-1 at p. 1.
During the hearing, Tyndall's testimony is recounted as
indicating that “[t]he paperwork [Crudup] had did not
match up with what was in medical” and that “[w]e
went through his paperwork we found it was from another
institution.” Id. at p. 3. Tyndall indicated
that he never saw paperwork from ECI-Annex stating that
Crudup was disabled and that he needed a cane. Id.
indicated during his disciplinary hearing that the entire
incident concerned him shadow boxing and using a medicine
ball and was not about his shorts or his possession of a
cane. ECF 6-1 at p. 3. He claimed he was showing Webster that
“boxing and use of a medicine ball was not martial
arts” and that Webster “got mad and said,
'you are out of here' do what my officers tell you to
do follow [sic] the rules.” Id.
Crudup further maintained that the reporting officer did not
report the full details of the incident and denied telling
Webster to shove or stick the cane “up your ass.”
administrative remedy procedure complaint (“ARP”)
filed by Crudup on September 15, 2016, was found meritorious
in part by Warden John Wolfe. ECF 7-1 at pp. 1- 3. Crudup
complained that he suffers from chronic pain syndrome and had
requested on several occasions either a cane or a walker or
both. ECF 7-1 at p. 1. He further states that due to issues
with his spine, he walks slowly, stooped over at his waist;
claims a cane was ordered for him on June 16, 2012; and the
lack of response to his sick call slips poses a threat to his
safety as it may cause him an injury. Id. at p. 2.
response, Wolfe stated:
There was no active order for a cane, as medical providers
must reassess and order annually, you did not have an active
order. There was though a delay in care as you waited for
your chronic care visit instead of being seen for provider
sick call. On 9/1/2016 you were evaluated by the doctor. You
apparently took a fall and were assessed by the physician.
You complained of pain to knee and back and were admitted to
the infirmary. According to that documentation, you were seen
by custody exercising and no use of cane. The cane was
confiscated as there was no order for the cane. The doctor
also documented on 9/1/2016 that there was only mention of a
cane in a 2014 document but no current order. On 9/2/2016, it
was noted that you had been standing at the infirmary door
waiting of food and medication independently without the use
of a cane. When asked about standing unassisted by the
physician, you were unable to explain. It is also documented
by the physician on 9/2/2016 that the doctor offered
treatment options for your knee, but you declined. The doctor
noted in the infirmary that there was minimal swelling to
your knee and that you no longer needed infirmary level care
and was discharged back to the housing unit with no order for
a cane noted. On 9/6/2016 you submitted a sick call slip in
reference to a cane and seen by the nurse on 9/8/2016, the
nurse noted that an email was sent to the providers about
your request and mobility issues. On 9/13/2016 you submitted
another sick call in reference to cane and it was noted on
9/15/2016 by the nurse that you would not comply with custody
and get properly dressed to come out for your sick call
visit. You were notified at the door that you would be seen
for chronic care. On 9/18/2016 medical received a sick call
slip from you again requesting a cane, you were advised at
the door to address this concern at upcoming chronic care
visit according to the medical documentation on 9/19/2016. On
9/29/2016, a slip call [sic] was received in
reference to a cane. According to nurse note 9/30/2016, you
walked up to the medical room in segregation independently
with a limp, you were again deferred to chronic care. On
10/6/2016 you were seen in chronic care to address his
[sic] chronic pain. At the time of this visit, you
complained of pain and your pain medications were changed and
x-rays were ordered for your ...