# McNeal

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · February 27, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11271903

## Case

- **Full name:** Cameron Belk, Sr. v. Dr. David Marcowitz and Dr. Vipin Shah
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** February 27, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11271903

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CAMERON BELK, SR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 21-cv-142-DWD
)
DR. DAVID MARCOWITZ and DR. )
VIPIN SHAH, )
)
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Cameron Belk, Sr. brings this pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for deprivations of his constitutional rights allegedly occurring when he was a pre-trial
detainee at St. Clair County Justice Center. (Docs. 203 and 207). Defendants Dr. David
Marcowitz and Dr. Vipin Shah1 have filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to

1 The original complaint included 24 plaintiffs. (Doc. 1). On June 3, 2021, the Court dismissed 22 of the
named plaintiffs after they failed to comply with a court order directing them to file a signed complaint and to notify
the court of their intent to proceed. (Doc. 133). Plaintiff Christopher McNeal’s claims were dismissed with prejudice
and a strike was assessed on January 3, 2022, leaving only Plaintiff Cameron Belk’s claims. (Doc. 182). Defendants
C/O Herdon, Lt. Penier, Securus Technologies, Sgt. Messy, Sgt. Scott, Sgt. Moore, Sgt. Green, C/O Kemfer, C/O
Brown, C/O Liebig, C/O Smith, C/O Everette, Salmartis Owens, B. Johnson, C/O Thorpe, C/O Futrell, C/O Sabo,
C/O Reed, C/O Wilburn, C/O Lazunta, C/O Knyff, C/O Zerohebak, T. Johnson, Sgt. Chambers, C/O J.P., Mark Kern,
C/O Stroud, Nurse Sherri, Nurse Shannon, Nurse Ashley, Nurse Yvonne, Nurse Jennifer, Nurse Morris, C/O Casey,
C/O Humphries, Janice MacCarron, Janelle Bloodworth, Floyd Higgins, C/O Garner, C/O Walt, Mike Ripperda, C/O
Cruz, Judge O’Gara, Judge Haida, C/O Fordson, Nurse Kate, C/O Rivera, Debra Hale, Nurse Lagtolla, C/O Becker,
C/O Briggs, and C/O Germaine were dismissed from the case on August 27, 2021 because they were not named in
the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 172). Defendants St. Clair County Jail, Keefe Group, Lt. Struberg, Sgt. Nichols, and
Trinity Commissary were dismissed from the case on May 18, 2020 because they were not named in the subsequent
Amended Complaint. (Doc. 199). Defendants Richard Watson, Marcie Warner, Dr. Lawson, Aramark Correctional
Services, Jim Gomric, Edwin R. Bowen, Melody Murry, Mary Robinson-Davis, St. Clair Co. Health Inspector, St.
Clair Co. Health Dept., Debi Gaetzke, Dr. Shaw, and C/O Simms were dismissed on December 19, 2022 and
December 21, 2022 because they were not named in the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 203). The claims as to
Defendants Tammi Grime, Shan Collins, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. were dismissed for failure to state a claim
at screening. (Doc. 207). The claims against Defendant Rodney Wilson were dismissed without prejudice after
Plaintiff did not elect to sever them into a separate action. (Doc. 229). The only remaining claims are those directed
against Defendants David Marcowitz and Vipin Shah.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Docs. 249 and 250). Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc.
253), and Defendants have filed a reply (Doc. 254).2 The claims for which summary

judgment is sought are the only claims remaining in this case – Counts 1 and 4.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Cameron Belk, Sr. filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
inadequate medical care and retaliation while he was a pretrial detainee at the St. Clair

County Jail. In his Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 203), Plaintiff claims that Dr. David
Marcowitz (who treated him from February 18, 2020, to approximately September 2021)
and Dr. Vipin Shah (who treated him from October 4, 2021, onward) provided
constitutionally deficient care for his post-2017 stroke-related conditions. He further
alleges that Dr. Shah was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in

connection with a right-calf wound, which he alleges was a MRSA infection, and COVID-
19 exposure. Plaintiff also asserts that Dr. Shah retaliated against him by moving him to
isolation after he filed grievances complaining that Dr. Shah was not following MRSA
protocols.
Although the Third Amended Complaint asserted additional claims against other

defendants, those claims have been resolved. The only claims that remain pending are:

2 Plaintiff also filed a sur-reply. (Doc. 255). The Local Rules of this Court provide that “[u]nder no
circumstances will sur-reply briefs be accepted” and prior to filing a supplement, a party must first seek leave of the
court. SDIL-LR 7.1(a)(4),(6). Because sur-reply briefs are prohibited and Plaintiff did not seek leave to file a
supplemental pleading, the Court will not consider Plaintiff’s sur-reply.
Claim 1: Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs against Dr. Marcowitz and Dr. Shah for their
handling of Plaintiff’s stroke-related health issues, and
against Dr. Shah for his alleged contraction of MRSA and for
COVID-19 exposure; and

Claim 4: First Amendment retaliation against Dr. Shah for preventing
access to medical care.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P.
56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc., 739
F.3d 1055, 1060 (7th Cir. 2014).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating why no trial is
necessary. Lawrence v. Kenosha Cty., 391 F.3d 837, 841 (7th Cir. 2004); Modrowski v. Pigatto,
712 F.3d 1166, 1168 (7th Cir. 2013). It may do so either by presenting affirmative evidence
negating an essential element of the nonmovant’s claim or by showing an absence of
evidence to support that claim. Modrowski, 712 F.3d at 1169; Hummel v. St. Joseph Cty. Bd.
of Comm’rs, 817 F.3d 1010, 1016 (7th Cir. 2016).
Once the movant meets this burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the
pleadings and set forth specific facts, supported by admissible evidence, showing a
genuine issue for trial. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322–24; Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). “Conclusory allegations, unsupported by specific
facts” are insufficient. Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Lujan v.
Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)). The nonmoving party must produce
evidence establishing each element on which it bears the burden of proof at trial. Midwest
Imps., Ltd. v. Coval, 71 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995).

In ruling on the motion, the Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolves any doubts in its favor.
Hansen v. Fincantieri Marine Grp., 763 F.3d 832, 836 (7th Cir. 2014); Bennington v. Caterpillar
Inc., 275 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2001); Bunn, 753 F.3d at 681. The Court does not weigh
evidence, resolve credibility issues, choose between competing inferences, or decide the
truth of the matters presented. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Hansen, 763 F.3d at 836.

A genuine issue of material fact exists only if the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Zaya v. Sood, 836 F.3d 800, 804 (7th
Cir. 2016); Faas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 532 F.3d 633, 640–41 (7th Cir. 2008).
III. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE3
Plaintiff has filed a Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment that

includes a Statement of Additional Material Facts and an Affidavit. (Doc. 253). Plaintiff’s
Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s Statement of
Additional Material Facts, and Plaintiff’s Affidavit fail to create any genuine dispute of
material fact under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff’s Response and Statement
of Additional Material Facts consist of general, unsupported assertions without citation

to admissible record evidence, as required by Rule 56(c). Conclusory statements and bald

3 Plaintiff’s response fails to comply with the procedural requirements of SDIL Local Rule 56.1. Although
SDIL Local Rule 56.1 applies equally to pro se litigants, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, affords Plaintiff
some leniency for his noncompliance with the Rule because Defendants’ Rule 56 notice did not address the
requirements unique to Local Rule 56.1. See Black v. Dearmond, No. 21-CV-1118-DWD, 2025 WL 370888 (S.D. Ill.
Feb. 3, 2025).
allegations are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See Daugherty v. Page, 906 F.3d
606, 611 (7th Cir. 2018); Bordelon v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 811 F.3d 984, 989 (7th

Cir. 2016); Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 953 F.3d 969, 972 (7th Cir. 2020). Because
Plaintiff has not “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial,”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986), none of the facts asserted in his
filings create a triable issue.
Plaintiff’s Affidavit likewise creates no genuine dispute. While a non-movant’s
affidavit based on personal knowledge may be considered, the vast majority of the

affidavit consists of the types of statements the Seventh Circuit has held are inadmissible
or insufficient at summary judgment, including legal conclusions, conclusory assertions
lacking any specific concrete facts or dates, lay medical opinions on diagnosis and
causation that Plaintiff is not qualified to render, and pure speculation regarding
Defendants’ state of mind and retaliatory motive. See Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 772

(7th Cir. 2003); Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., 772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); Mills v. First
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 83 F.3d 833, 842-43 (7th Cir. 1996); Visser v. Packer Eng’g Assocs.,
Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); Holton v. Hamblin, No. 11-CV-246-SLC, 2013 WL
6230520, at *9 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 2, 2013). The only portions of the affidavit grounded in
Plaintiff’s personal knowledge (i.e., that he submitted requests and grievances and kept

a personal log pertaining to his medical care) do not contradict any of the specific, record-
supported facts in Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts regarding the care provided,
the dates of visits, the orders issued, the test results, or the referrals made.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s “personal log,” attached for the first time to his summary
judgment response, cannot be considered. Defendants expressly requested any diaries,

calendars, chronologies, or similar documents in which Plaintiff recorded his interactions
with Defendants, symptoms, or alleged delays in care, yet Plaintiff withheld this log on
a blanket assertion of ‘work product privilege.’ (Docs. 254-1 and 254-2). Having withheld
a plainly responsive document, Plaintiff was required not only to expressly assert any
claim of protection, but also to describe the nature of the withheld material in a manner
that would permit Defendants to assess that claim. Further, if he later intended to rely on

the document, he was required to timely supplement his discovery response. FED. R. CIV.
P. 26(b)(5)(A), 26(e). He failed to do so.
Rule 37(c)(1) therefore bars Plaintiff from using the log “to supply evidence on a
motion” unless his failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless. It was
neither. The log purports to be a contemporaneous two-year account of the events at

issue,4 and withholding it during discovery deprived Defendants of any fair opportunity
to examine it before dispositive briefing. As such, the Court will strike Plaintiff’s
“personal log.” See Mannoia v. Farrow, 476 F.3d 453, 456-57 (7th Cir. 2007).5

4 Plaintiff describes it as “a personal medical log, documenting “daily harm and lack of treatment from
Defendants.” (Doc. 253, pg. 5).
5 The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s “personal log” consists of approximately 150 pages of handwritten
notes, many of which are difficult to decipher. In response to summary judgment, Plaintiff refers to the log only
generally, asserting that it reflects “daily harm and lack of treatment from Defendants,” but he does not identify which
particular entries support which claims, nor does he cite any specific page or portion of the exhibit. That is not enough
to create a genuine dispute of material fact. Even setting aside the disclosure problem, the log does not aid Plaintiff in
opposing summary judgment because the Court is not required to sift through a lengthy, partially illegible exhibit in
search of evidence that Plaintiff himself has failed to pinpoint. See Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892,
898 (7th Cir. 2003) (“We have repeatedly assured the district courts that they are not required to scour every inch of
the record for evidence that is potentially relevant to the summary judgment motion before them.”).
To the extent that Plaintiff has not presented admissible evidence to dispute
Defendants’ statement of undisputed material facts, those material facts, as long as they

are supported by evidence in the record, shall be accepted as true.
IV. FACTUAL RECORD
Plaintiff suffered a stroke in June 2017, prior to his detention. Before incarceration,
he was treated by neurologist Dr. Alexander Carter, underwent physical and
occupational therapy, and was prescribed medications including Hydrochlorothiazide 50
mg and Losartan 100 mg. After approximately two months, Plaintiff’s physical and

occupational therapy were discontinued, and he was instructed to continue with a home
exercise program.
Plaintiff was booked into the jail on February 8, 2019. At the time of booking, he
was taking Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 50 mg and Losartan 100 mg. On October 11,
2019, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Carter, his pre-detainment treating neurologist, who

assessed that Plaintiff had mild right-side weakness and right-side sensory changes and
spasms that were expected after a stroke on the left side of the brain, while noting he
could not say for sure whether there had been any new strokes in the same area because
symptoms can sometimes change even without a new stroke.
Dr. Marcowitz first saw Plaintiff on February 18, 2020, when Plaintiff was on the

MD call line to discuss physical therapy. On examination, Dr. Marcowitz charted no facial
weakness, regular heart rate and rhythm, lungs clear to auscultation, mild right-side
weakness, and a normal gait. He increased Plaintiff’s Amlodipine to 10 mg daily and
directed Plaintiff to continue with his home exercise program.
Over the following months, Dr. Marcowitz regularly evaluated Plaintiff for
hypertension, edema, dietary complaints, constipation, blurred or double vision, leg

spasms, shortness of breath, chest pain, cough, and post-COVID-19 symptoms. He
adjusted medications as needed, including diuretics, submitted non-formulary requests
for Baclofen and Gabapentin consistent with neurologist recommendations, ordered
diagnostic testing and laboratory work, referred Plaintiff for physical therapy, neurology,
and cardiology follow-up, and implemented specialist recommendations, including
aspirin, additional testing, and cardiology referral.

The record reflects repeated neurological examinations showing no new deficits
beyond Plaintiff’s baseline post-stroke symptoms, although Dr. Carter had noted in
October 2019 that he could not rule out the possibility of a new stroke. The diagnostic
testing ordered during Dr. Marcowitz’s care included chest x-rays showing no acute
cardiopulmonary disease, MRI/MRA showing no conclusive evidence of a new

intracranial process, venous doppler showing no evidence of acute DVT, normal
echocardiogram and stress test results, and cardiac catheterization showing no significant
coronary artery disease.
The record also reflects a July 2020 assessment of congestive heart failure, August
2020 COVID-19 infection, routine blood-pressure monitoring, and that Plaintiff at times

refused examinations, laboratory testing, or treatment, while some outside appointments
were delayed because of COVID-19 protocols.
A physical therapist evaluated Plaintiff in July 2020 and provided a home exercise
program, and between July 2020 and September 2021 Plaintiff was given access to the law
library to perform those exercises. Dr. Marcowitz last saw Plaintiff on August 18, 2021,
when they discussed Plaintiff’s scheduled cardiology follow-up.

Dr. Shah assumed Plaintiff’s care on October 4, 2021. He addressed Plaintiff’s
complaints relating to stroke issues, blood pressure, and leg swelling by prescribing
Norvasc 10 mg, referring Plaintiff to physical therapy, ordering compression stockings,
and directing frequent blood-pressure checks.
During Dr. Shah’s care, Plaintiff continued to receive medication renewals and
adjustments, treatment for congestion, leg and knee pain, and care for a right lower calf

wound. In January and February 2022, Plaintiff was treated by nursing staff for the
wound, and Dr. Shah prescribed Septra for two weeks and Spironolactone, later adjusting
the Spironolactone dosage after Plaintiff complained of dizziness. After wound culture
results were reviewed on February 8, 2022, Dr. Shah ordered Levaquin. Plaintiff
repeatedly refused to sign a release of responsibility for that medication, and on February

12, 2022, nursing staff advised him that he needed to begin antibiotic therapy and gave
him the choice of taking Levaquin or being moved to isolation to receive Rocephin.
On February 13, 2022, Plaintiff agreed to start Rocephin and was moved to
isolation. The wound later healed, and wound care was discontinued. Dr. Shah also
addressed Plaintiff’s orthotic and mobility complaints, indicating Plaintiff could use a

cane, though jail staff later determined for security reasons that he should instead be
transported by wheelchair. Dr. Shah continued Plaintiff’s care through cardiology and
neurology follow-ups, x-rays, ultrasound testing with negative results, referrals to
physical and occupational therapy, neurology, and foot and ankle specialists, provision
of orthotics, and later referrals to optometry and ENT.

In March 2022, x-rays showed mild osteoarthritis of the right hip and a normal
right knee, and in April 2022 Dr. Shah noted Plaintiff’s wound had healed and advised
exercise. Plaintiff was later approved for physical and occupational therapy once a week
for eight weeks, and Dr. Shah last saw Plaintiff on December 18, 2022, when he advised
Plaintiff that daily therapy was not approved and encouraged him to continue the
exercises recommended by therapy. Throughout Dr. Shah’s care, Plaintiff’s blood

pressure was routinely monitored.
V. DISCUSSION
A. Claim 1 – Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
Pretrial detainees’ claims of inadequate medical care arise under the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and are governed by an objective reasonableness

standard, not the subjective deliberate indifference standard that applies to convicted
prisoners under the Eighth Amendment. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015); James
v. Hale, 959 F.3d 307, 318 (7th Cir. 2020); Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir.
2019); Miranda v. Cty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2018).
To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must show that he was suffering from

an objectively serious medical condition, that Defendants—acting “purposefully,
knowingly, or perhaps even recklessly,” as opposed to negligently—responded or failed
to respond in a manner that was objectively unreasonable. Williams v. Ortiz, 937 F.3d 936,
942–43 (7th Cir. 2019). The objective-reasonableness standard requires the Court to “focus
on the totality of facts and circumstances” in the case and “gauge objectively—without
regard to any subjective belief held by the individual—whether the response was

reasonable.” McGee, 55 F.4th at 569 (quoting McCann v. Ogle County, 909 F.3d 881, 886 (7th
Cir. 2018)). The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating objective unreasonableness.
James, 959 F.3d at 318.
Plaintiff alleges Dr. Marcowitz and Dr. Shah were deliberately indifferent for the
care provided from February of 2020 to date. Specifically, Plaintiff claims Drs. Marcowitz
and Shah are subject to liability for their handling of Plaintiff’s stroke related health

issues, and that Dr. Shah is subject to liability for Plaintiff’s alleged contraction of MRSA
and for Covid-19 exposure. As to Plaintiff’s stroke related health issues, Plaintiff’s core
allegation seems to be that, “[d]espite repeated requests and obvious symptoms”,
Defendants failed to timely diagnose or provide adequate care, refused to authorize or
provide essential physical and occupational therapy, ignored or delayed access to

specialists and rehabilitative services, and thereby caused Plaintiff permanent
disabilities.
The parties agree that Plaintiff’s post-stroke condition, alleged MRSA wound, and
COVID-19 exposure constitute objectively serious medical conditions. Accordingly, the
only issue before the Court is whether Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s conditions

were objectively unreasonable.
1. Dr. Marcowitz
On the record before the Court, no reasonable jury could conclude that Dr.
Marcowitz’s treatment of Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable. From February 18, 2020,
through August 18, 2021, Dr. Marcowitz saw Plaintiff on numerous occasions for
complaints that included hypertension, edema, dietary issues, constipation, blurred or

double vision, leg spasms, shortness of breath, chest pain, cough, and post-COVID
symptoms. When Plaintiff cooperated with the encounter, Dr. Marcowitz examined him,
monitored his condition, and adjusted treatment in response to his complaints. He
increased Plaintiff’s Amlodipine to 10 mg daily, adjusted diuretic therapy as clinically
indicated, imposed fluid and sodium restrictions when appropriate, ordered and
reviewed diagnostic testing and laboratory work, submitted non-formulary requests for

Baclofen and Gabapentin consistent with neurology recommendations, referred Plaintiff
for physical therapy, neurology, and cardiology follow-up, and implemented outside
specialists’ recommendations, including aspirin, additional testing, and cardiology
referral.
The diagnostic testing obtained during Dr. Marcowitz’s care further confirms the

reasonableness of his response. Chest x-rays showed no acute cardiopulmonary disease.
MRI and MRA imaging revealed no conclusive evidence of a new intracranial process. A
venous Doppler showed no evidence of acute DVT. An echocardiogram and stress test
were normal, and cardiac catheterization showed no significant coronary artery disease.
The record also reflects that Dr. Marcowitz assessed Plaintiff with congestive heart failure

in July 2020, continued to monitor Plaintiff’s edema and blood pressure, and responded
to Plaintiff’s evolving complaints with follow-up visits, medication adjustments, and
further testing. When Plaintiff tested positive for COVID-19 in August 2020, Dr.
Marcowitz assessed him as stable, noted his history of congestive heart failure and
diuretic use, ordered CBC, BMP, and BNP testing, and continued fluid and sodium
restrictions. Earlier, when Plaintiff complained of cough in July 2020, chest x-rays were

ordered and showed no acute disease.
The record likewise refutes Plaintiff’s assertion that Dr. Marcowitz denied him
therapy or ignored his stroke-related complaints. Dr. Marcowitz submitted a referral for
physical therapy, and Plaintiff was evaluated by physical therapy in July 2020 and
provided a home exercise program. Between July 2020 and September 2021, Plaintiff was
given access to the law library to perform those exercises. Dr. Marcowitz also facilitated

neurology follow-up, submitted requests for MRI/MRA at the neurologist’s direction,
approved aspirin the same day it was recommended by neurology, and referred Plaintiff
to cardiology when Plaintiff later complained of chest pain, shortness of breath, and
weight gain. This is not a record of ignored symptoms or withheld care; it is a record of
ongoing treatment, repeated follow-up, specialist referrals, and implementation of

outside recommendations.
Nor does Plaintiff identify evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude
that Dr. Marcowitz’s decisions represented such a substantial departure from accepted
professional judgment as to be objectively unreasonable. See Williams v. Ortiz, 937 F.3d
936, 944 (7th Cir. 2019) (persistent and reasoned medical attention is inconsistent with

objectively unreasonable care); see also Vogelsberg v. Kim, No. 20-2926, 2022 WL 1154767,
at *3 (7th Cir. Apr. 19, 2022). Plaintiff was not constitutionally entitled to demand
immediate off-site therapy on his preferred schedule or specialist appointments without
regard to COVID-related rescheduling. See Smith v. Kapotas, 2020 WL 553619, at *5 (N.D.
Ill. 2020) (“[A] pretrial detainee is not entitled to the treatment of his choice, nor may he
state a constitutional claim merely by second-guessing a medical provider's professional

judgment....”); Burton v. Downey, 805 F.3d 776, 785 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Surely Burton would
have preferred Vicodin to Ultram, or to have seen a doctor who would have prescribed
narcotics, but detainees are not entitled to receive ‘unqualified access to healthcare.’ ”)
(quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)) (applying the Fourteenth Amendment
before Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015)).
At most, Plaintiff disagrees with the course of care provided, but such

disagreement does not establish objectively unreasonable medical treatment. See Lloyd v.
Moats, 721 F. App'x 490, 494–95 (7th Cir. 2017); McClendon v. Lochard, No. 19-CV-373, 2021
WL 3172982, at *8 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2021).
2. Dr. Shah
Stroke-Related Care

Plaintiff asserts the same generalized accusations against Dr. Shah that he raises
against Dr. Marcowitz. Namely, Dr. Shah refused essential therapies, ignored symptoms,
and delayed specialist or rehabilitative care, thereby causing permanent disabilities. The
undisputed record does not support those assertions. Dr. Shah assumed Plaintiff’s care
on October 4, 2021, and promptly addressed Plaintiff’s complaints regarding stroke-

related issues, blood pressure, and leg swelling by prescribing Norvasc 10 mg daily,
referring Plaintiff to physical therapy, ordering compression stockings, and directing that
Plaintiff’s blood pressure be checked multiple times per week.
Over the following months, Dr. Shah continued to monitor Plaintiff, renew and
adjust medications, and respond to intervening complaints, including congestion, knee

and leg pain, dizziness related to Spironolactone, axillary swelling, and orthotic concerns.
He also ordered additional diagnostic testing, including x-rays, laboratory work, and
ultrasound imaging; referred Plaintiff for neurology follow-up, physical therapy,
occupational therapy, and foot-and-ankle evaluation; later referred Plaintiff to optometry
and ENT; and entered orders implementing neurologist recommendations, including
increases to Baclofen and Gabapentin. Plaintiff was given orthotics in October 2022, and

by November 2022 Dr. Shah had submitted a referral request for physical and
occupational therapy once a week for eight weeks, which he later advised Plaintiff had
been approved.
The record also reflects that Dr. Shah responded to Plaintiff’s mobility-related
concerns. In October 2021, Dr. Shah indicated Plaintiff could use a cane. When nursing

staff later consulted jail security personnel, however, it was determined for safety and
security reasons that Plaintiff should instead be transported by wheelchair. That decision
does not show objectively unreasonable medical care by Dr. Shah. Nor does the record
support Plaintiff’s claim that Dr. Shah ignored his condition generally. Throughout Dr.
Shah’s care, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was routinely monitored, specialists continued to

follow Plaintiff, and Dr. Shah repeatedly responded to Plaintiff’s complaints with
examination, medication management, referrals, testing, and follow-up care. His final
visit on December 18, 2022, reflects that he advised Plaintiff he had been approved for
weekly therapy and encouraged him to continue the exercises recommended by therapy.
This course of treatment reflects persistent and reasoned medical attention, not
objectively unreasonable care. See Williams v. Ortiz, 937 F.3d 936, 944 (7th Cir. 2019); see

also Vogelsberg v. Kim, No. 20-2926, 2022 WL 1154767, at *3 (7th Cir. Apr. 19, 2022). At
bottom, Plaintiff’s assertions amount to disagreement with Dr. Shah’s professional
judgment and dissatisfaction with the pace or form of treatment he received, which is
insufficient to create a triable constitutional claim. See Lloyd v. Moats, 721 F. App'x 490,
494–95 (7th Cir. 2017); McClendon v. Lochard, No. 19-CV-373, 2021 WL 3172982, at *8 (N.D.
Ill. July 27, 2021).

Wound Care.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Shah caused him to contract what Plaintiff characterizes
as a MRSA infection by failing to manage another detainee’s infection and/or by
negligently failing to follow infection protocol. (Docs. 203, 207, 253). But Plaintiff cites no
record evidence establishing that his wound was MRSA, much less that Dr. Shah caused

it. The undisputed record contains no evidence linking Dr. Shah to the origin of Plaintiff’s
wound or any alleged infection, and Plaintiff’s speculation on that point cannot defeat
summary judgment. See McCoy v. Harrison, 341 F.3d 600, 604 (7th Cir. 2003).
To the extent Plaintiff instead claims that Dr. Shah was deliberately indifferent in
treating the wound once it arose, the record forecloses that theory as well. Once the right-

calf wound came to Dr. Shah’s attention, Plaintiff received prompt and ongoing care.
Nursing staff provided wound care in January and February 2022. Dr. Shah prescribed
Septra for two weeks together with Spironolactone. After review of the wound-culture
results, he ordered the non-formulary antibiotic Levaquin. When Plaintiff repeatedly
refused to sign the release of responsibility for Levaquin, nursing staff advised him that
he needed to begin antibiotic therapy and gave him the option of taking Levaquin or

being moved to isolation to receive injectable Rocephin. Plaintiff agreed to Rocephin the
next day, was moved to isolation, and the wound later healed, after which wound care
was discontinued. No reasonable jury could find on this record that Dr. Shah’s response
was objectively unreasonable.
COVID-19 Exposure.
Plaintiff also claims Dr. Shah was responsible for his contraction of COVID-19 in

December 2021 and again in August 2022. But Plaintiff was housed in general population
at the time of both infections, and he identifies no evidence linking Dr. Shah to either
exposure or infection. On this record, that claim rests on speculation rather than evidence
and cannot survive summary judgment. See Vogelsberg v. Kim, No. 20-2926, 2022 WL
1154767, at *3 (7th Cir. Apr. 19, 2022); McCoy, 341 F.3d at 604.

In sum, the undisputed record shows that Dr. Shah provided ongoing, responsive,
and medically appropriate care for Plaintiff’s stroke-related conditions, promptly and
effectively treated the calf wound once discovered, and had no involvement in Plaintiff’s
COVID-19 infections. No reasonable jury could conclude that Dr. Shah’s conduct was
objectively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Dr. Shah is therefore

entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claims against
him.
B. Claim 4 - First Amendment retaliation against Dr. Shah
To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a prisoner must prove that: (1)
he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation

that would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in that protected
activity; and (3) the protected activity was at least a motivating factor in the defendant’s
decision to impose the deprivation. Archer v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 618 (7th Cir. 2017);
Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009); Hawkins v. Mitchell, 756 F.3d 983, 996
(7th Cir. 2014). Filing grievances about jail conditions is protected First Amendment
activity. Douglas v. Reeves, 964 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir. 2020).

Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Shah retaliated against him by ordering his placement in
isolation after Plaintiff filed grievances asserting that Dr. Shah failed to follow infection-
control protocols. But Plaintiff identifies no evidence supporting that theory. The
undisputed record shows that, after Plaintiff repeatedly declined to begin the prescribed
oral antibiotic Levaquin, nursing staff advised him on February 12, 2022, that he needed

to start antibiotic treatment and gave him the option of taking Levaquin or being moved
to isolation to receive injectable Rocephin. Plaintiff agreed the next day to begin Rocephin
and be moved to isolation. Thus, the record shows that Plaintiff’s placement in isolation
was tied to the administration of alternative antibiotic treatment, not to any protected
activity. Plaintiff offers no evidence that Dr. Shah ordered or caused the isolation

placement because Plaintiff filed grievances. Without evidence that Plaintiff’s protected
activity was a motivating factor in the decision, no reasonable jury could find retaliation.
Dr. Shah is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amendment
retaliation claim.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants David Marcowitz and Vipin Shah (Doc. 249) is GRANTED. The claims

against David Marcowitz and Vipin Shah are DISMISSED with Prejudice. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to close the case and to enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2026
s/David W. Dugan
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11271903. Public record. Not legal advice.