CRUM v. WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
RYAN CRUM, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:23-cv-00132-TWP-KMB
)
BRENT MILLER Sheriff, 	)
JOEY RICHARDSON Jail Commander, 	)
TYSON ABBOTT, 	)
NURSE SHERRY1, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT PATTON'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING FURTHER ACTIONS
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant
Sherry Patton ("Nurse Patton") (Dkt. 64). Plaintiff Ryan Crum's ("Mr. Crum") Amended
Complaint 	brings 	Fourteenth 	Amendment 	claims 	against 	Defendants 	Brent 	Miller, 	Joey
Richardson, Tyson Abbott, and Nurse Patton. Mr. Crum's claim against Nurse Patton is that she
provided inadequate medical care for injuries that he sustained on August 2, 2021, when jail
personnel knocked out some of Mr. Crum's teeth by slamming him on a metal bedframe. Nurse
Patton seeks judgment as matter of law, and Mr. Crum did not respond to her summary judgment
motion. For the reasons stated in this Order, summary judgment is granted as to Nurse Patton.
And because of the age of this case, the Court directs further actions of the remaining parties.
I. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a trial is unnecessary because
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to judgment
1 Mr. Crum incorrectly named this Defendant "Nurse Sherry," however, her true name is Sherry Patton. The Court
will use defendants correct name-Nurse Patton--in this Order.
Case 4:23-cv-00132-TWP-KMB Document 74 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment,
the Court views the record and draws all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party. Khungar v. Access Cmty. Health Network, 985 F.3d 565, 572–73 (7th Cir.
2021). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment because
those tasks are left to the fact-finder. Miller v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014). A
court only has to consider the materials cited by the parties, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); it need
not "scour the record" for evidence that might be relevant. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d
562, 573−74 (7th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).
A party seeking summary judgment must inform the district court of the basis for its motion
and identify the record evidence it contends demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Whether a party asserts that a
fact is undisputed or genuinely disputed, the party must support the asserted fact by citing to
particular parts of the record, including depositions, documents, or affidavits. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c)(1)(A). Failure to properly support a fact in opposition to a movant's factual assertion can
result in the movant's fact being considered undisputed, and potentially in the grant of summary
judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
Mr. Crum failed to respond to the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, facts alleged
in the motion are "admitted without controversy" so long as support for them exists in the record.
S.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(f); see S.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(b) (party opposing judgment must file response
brief and identify disputed facts). "Even where a non-movant fails to respond to a motion for
summary judgment, the movant still has to show that summary judgment is proper given the
undisputed facts." Robinson v. Waterman, 1 F.4th 480, 483 (7th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).
Case 4:23-cv-00132-TWP-KMB Document 74 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
II. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Because Nurse Patton has moved for summary judgment under Rule 56(a), the Court views
and recites the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Mr. Crum, and draws
all reasonable inferences in his favor. Khungar, 985 F.3d at 572–73.
At the times relevant to this litigation, Nurse Patton was a Licensed Practical Nurse
employed by Quality Correctional Care, LLC ("QCC") and assigned to the Washington County
Jail ("the Jail"). Dkt. 65-2 ¶ 4 (Dew Affidavit). She was tasked with a variety of nursing duties
including completing patient evaluations, conveying patient information to Dr. Kevin Dew (a QCC
doctor assigned to the Jail), and carrying out the medical orders that Dr. Dew issued. Id. ¶¶ 2, 5.
Mr. Crum was booked into the Jail on August 2, 2021. (Dkt. 65-1 at 3). County Intake
Officers completed a medical intake assessment. (Dkt. 65-2 ¶ 9). According to the completed
medical intake assessment provided to Nurse Patton, Mr. Crum had no medical issues or injuries
that required immediate attention. Id. ¶ 10. Dr. Drew opined that, based on the lack of any
concerning medical information in Mr. Crum's medical intake assessment, Nurse Patton's lack of
immediate follow up with Mr. Crum was completely reasonable and well within the medical
standard of care. Id. ¶ 11.
Later in the evening of August 2, Nurse Grimes talked to Mr. Crum at his cell door
following his request to see a nurse. Dkt. 65-1 at 51. He was very upset and crying. Id. When Nurse
Grimes asked Mr. Crum what he needed, Mr. Crum said that he should not be in jail and that he
did nothing wrong. Id.
On August 19, 2021 Mr. Crum had his 14-Day Health Assessment. Id. at 2. During this
assessment, it was noted that his teeth showed signs of decay. Id. There were no notes of tooth
infection or swelling. Id. Dr. Dew opined that all of Nurse Patton's actions and documentation
Case 4:23-cv-00132-TWP-KMB Document 74 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
during the 14-Day Health Assessment were reasonable and well within the medical standard of
care. Dkt. 65-2 ¶ 16.
The same day, Mr. Crum submitted an electronic request to medical staff through the jail
kiosk. (Dkt. 65-1 at 14). He expressed concerns about what food was on his trays because he
followed a pescatarian diet, but he did not make any medical request and made no mention of
broken teeth or violence inflicted by correction officers. Id. Mr. Crum submitted a similar request
on August 29, 2021. Id. at 13.
On August 31, 2021 Mr. Crum submitted a medical request for issues related to his "broken
tooth," stating:
[I] have been given antibiotics for two days for my abcess when most of my tooth
was busted out by CO's on day 1 here. the nurse has not been here in the evening
the last few days and they wont give them to me in the p.m.; this rises major concern
to me… one concern is the stop and go with antibiotics… another is why an unfit
CO gives me Tylenol exclaiming its ibuprofen…have had kidney problems from
acetametaphin (sp?) and am getting told ibuprofen is whats being administered on
multiple occasions… this is some sort of malpractice and relief needs to be provided
considering my health and condition was better (prior to being here) vs being here.
thank you for your help!
Id. at 12 (spelling, ellipses as in original). The same day, Nurse Patton saw Mr. Crum for a full
health evaluation. (Dkt. 65-2 ¶ 20). Nurse Patton noted Crum's concerns regarding tooth pain and
swelling. (Dkt. 65-1 at 1). She then provided her evaluation results to Dr. Dew, who prescribed
Mr. Crum an antibiotic (Cipro) and pain reliever (Ibuprofen) for infection, swelling, and pain.
(Dkt. 65-2 ¶ 21). Dr. Dew opined that all of Patton's actions and documentation at the August 31
medical evaluation were reasonable and well within the medical standard of care. Id. ¶ 22.
Other than a medical request form submitted on November 14 again addressing the food
available at the jail, Nurse Patton had no other interactions with Crum during 2021. Id. ¶ 23; dkt.
65-1 at 9.
Case 4:23-cv-00132-TWP-KMB Document 74 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
III. 	DISCUSSION
Mr. Crum's claim against Nurse Patton is that she provided inadequate medical care for
injuries he sustained while he was a pretrial detainee in the Jail in 2021. Nurse Patton, "[i]n order
to err on the side of caution and thoroughness," also briefed her summary judgment motion
regarding allegations occurring in 2023. (Dkt. 67 at 1). The amended complaint, however, only
alleges that Nurse Patton provided inadequate medical care in 2021, so the Court does not address
the medical care Nurse Patton provided to Mr. Crum in 2023, as it is not before the Court. (Dkt.
18 at 4).
A pretrial detainee's unconstitutional medical care claim, brought under the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is analyzed according to the objective unreasonableness
inquiry laid out in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015). See also Miranda v. County of
Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2018). A defendant violates a pretrial detainee's due process
right to constitutionally acceptable medical care if:
(1) there was an objectively serious medical need; (2) the defendant committed a
volitional act concerning the [plaintiff's] medical need; (3) that act was objectively
unreasonable under the circumstances in terms of responding to the [plaintiff's]
medical need; and (4) the defendant act[ed] "purposefully, knowingly, or perhaps
even recklessly" with respect to the risk of harm.
Gonzalez v. McHenry County, Ill., 40 F.4th 824, 828 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Miranda, 900 F.3d
at 353−54). "This standard requires courts to focus on the totality of facts and circumstances faced
by the individual alleged to have provided inadequate medical care and to gauge objectively—
without regard to any subjective belief held by the individual—whether the response was
reasonable." Williams v. Ortiz, 937 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up).
Nurse Patton argues that the undisputed evidence shows (1) she did not act purposefully,
knowingly, or recklessly to harm Mr. Crum, and (2) her actions were not objectively unreasonable.
Case 4:23-cv-00132-TWP-KMB Document 74 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
On the record presented, the Court agrees.
Dr. Dew's sworn opinion that Nurse Patton's actions were reasonable and within the
standard of medical care is uncontested evidence of the reasonability of Nurse Patton's actions.
The non-opinion evidence also shows no apparent objective unreasonableness, nor is there a
reasonable inference that Nurse Patton purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly acted to harm Mr.
Crum. The designated evidence is that Mr. Crum's initial medical intake exam did not reveal a
need for immediate medical or dental attention and the 14-Day form mentioned tooth decay but
not infection or swelling. Though Mr. Crum's August 31, 2021 message discusses his dental
problem and he discusses issues he experienced gaining proper medication for it, there is no
evidence that Nurse Patton was responsible for those issues.2 Instead, there is evidence that she
saw Mr. Crum in response to his message and noted his tooth pain and swelling, which ultimately
resulted in Dr. Dew prescribing medications for Mr. Crum.
Because the evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Crum, does not
show that Nurse Patton acted purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly to harm Mr. Crum and does
not show that her actions were objectively unreasonable, the Court grants summary judgment in
favor of Nurse Patton.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, Defendant Nurse Sherry Patton's unopposed motion for
summary judgment, Dkt. [64] is GRANTED. The clerk is directed to terminate Nurse Patton as a
defendant in this action. This case remains pending as to Defendants Brent Miller, Joey
Richardson, and Tyson Abbott.
2 Mr. Crum did write in his message that "the nurse has not been here in the evening the last few days and they wont
give [the antibiotics] to me in the p.m.," but the evidence of "the nurse" being off duty falls short of being evidence
that Nurse Patton provided inadequate medical care. (Dkt. 65-1 at 12).
Case 4:23-cv-00132-TWP-KMB Document 74 Filed 01/26/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
V. 	FURTHER ACTIONS
This action was initiated in August 2023. (Dkt. 1). The dispositive motions deadline has
passed, and the claims against Defendants Brent Miller, Joey Richardson, Tyson Abbott, remain
pending. In a separate order, this case will be set for trial.
On September 12, 2025, Mr. Crum stated that he intends to litigate his case pro se and
"participate personally in any settlement conference," and that he is "committed to presenting my
own case and to remain[] the primary voice before the Court and jury." (Dkt. 71 at 2). If Mr. Crum
has changed his mind, he may file a motion for assistance with recruiting counsel by February
16, 2026. Once that deadline passes, or once any such motion has been ruled on, the Magistrate
Judge is asked to schedule a telephonic status conference to discuss further proceedings. The Court
also requests that the Magistrate Judge schedule a settlement conference, in advance of the trial
date.
No partial final judgment shall issue at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 1/26/2026
Distribution:
RYAN CRUM
299480
1550 N. Highschool Road
Indianapolis, IN 46624
R. Jeffrey Lowe
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP (New Albany)
jlowe@k-glaw.com
Brian M. Pierce
Brian M. Pierce, Attorney at Law
brian@brianpiercelaw.com
Case 4:23-cv-00132-TWP-KMB Document 74 Filed 01/26/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>