Crawford v. Hutton et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 5/31/18. (SAC )

FILED
2018 May-31 PM 02:54
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
THOMAS CRAWFORD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SERGEANT HINES and DR. DAVID )
PAVLAKOVIC,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 7:16-cv-01469-AKK-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report on May 8, 2018, recommending that
defendant Pavlakovic’s motion to dismiss pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e for the
plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies be denied. Doc. 29 at 44.
The magistrate judge further recommended that defendants Hines’ and
Pavlakovic’s motions for summary judgment be granted. Id. The plaintiff filed
objections to the report and recommendation on May 24, 2018. Doc. 30.
In his objections, the plaintiff restates his claims that defendant Hines failed
to protect him from an inmate attack and Dr. Pavlakovic failed to provide him
adequate medical treatment for his serious medical needs. Doc. 30. He claims that
defendants Hines and Pavlakovic “should have performed their professional duties
more properly” and that “things could have been prevented.” Id. at 2–3. The

plaintiff also claims generally that “there is much evidence” in his complaint that
Pavlakovic delayed his medical treatment. Doc. 30 at 2.
The plaintiff fails to address the magistrate judge’s conclusion that there are
no facts showing that defendant Hines had subjective knowledge that inmates
Pickens and Jones posed a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff, or that
Hines was deliberately indifferent to his safety. Neither is there evidence that
defendant Pavlakovic had subjective knowledge of, and disregarded, a risk of
serious harm to the plaintiff due to his chronic pain. Indeed, the medical record
reveals that after the plaintiff’s initial diagnosis and procedures, defendant
Pavlakovic and medical staff routinely examined the plaintiff and Pavlakovic
prescribed the plaintiff pain medication and requested diagnostic procedures in
response to the plaintiff’s complaints of pain. Doc. 14-1 at 1-129. Moreover, the
plaintiff has not placed any “verifying medical evidence in the record to establish
the detrimental effect” of a delay as required to succeed on his constitutional claim
against Pavlakovic. Hill v. Dekalb Reg’l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1188 (11th
Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation, and the objections thereto, the
magistrate judge’s report is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is
ACCEPTED.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that defendant Pavlakovic’s
2

motion to dismiss pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e for the plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust administrative remedies is DENIED. The court further ORDERS that
defendants Hines’ and Pavlakovic’s motions for summary judgment are
GRANTED, the court finding no genuine issues of material fact exist and that the
defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
DONE the 31st day of May, 2018.

_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3