Dorsey v. Keen Mountain Medical Dept. et al
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 8/2/2019. (tvt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
LAMONT DORSEY,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
KEEN MOUNTAIN MEDICAL
DEPT., et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 7:17cv00559
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By: Norman K. Moon
United States District Judge
Plaintiff Lamont Dorsey, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was denied adequate medical treatment.
Defendant Medical Director of Keen Mountain Correctional Center (“Keen Mountain”) has
moved to dismiss, and this matter is ripe for disposition. 1 After reviewing the record, I conclude
that the motion to dismiss must be denied.
Dorsey, an inmate at Greensville Correctional Center, claims he was denied proper
medical treatment by healthcare providers at Keen Mountain, and names the Medical Director as
a defendant. After the defendant was notified of this action, he filed a motion for a more definite
statement because there was “insufficient information . . . to enable defense counsel to identify
the person whose actions [were] at issue.” See Docket No. 28. The court granted defendant’s
motion and directed Dorsey to file “sufficient additional information to identify the defendant
‘KMCC Medical Director’ by providing the requested information and/or any other identifying
information.” 2
See Docket No. 30.
Dorsey did not respond within the time allotted and
defendant Medical Director moved to dismiss Dorsey’s complaint on the basis that he failed to
1
By previous memorandum opinion and order, the court dismissed Dorsey’s claims against the
Commonwealth of Virginia and Keen Mountain Medical Department. See Docket Nos. 43 and 44.
2
In the motion for a more definite statement, defendant asked Dorsey to provide the gender of the medical
director; whether he or she is a doctor, nurse, or other health care provider; the approximate dates and locations of
which Dorsey had contact with the medical director and a description of the contact; and a description of the
grievances he submitted relative to the case.
comply with the court’s order. See Docket No. 31. Dorsey responded to defendant’s motion and
indicated that he had “provided all identifying information he had knowledge of” and that he
“complied with the court’s order as best as he could, based on the limited information he has and
in his limited ability to do so.” See Docket Nos. 35 and 39. Thereafter, defendant Medical
Director identified himself as Eugene Whited. See Docket No. 48. Inasmuch as Dorsey is
proceeding pro se and the defendant Medical Director has now been identified, I will deny his
motion to dismiss.
2nd
ENTER: This _____ day of August, 2019.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?