Birdow v. Kwarteng, No. 23-40316 (5th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-40316 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ No. 23-40316 Summary Calendar ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 2, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Austin D. Birdow, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Isaac Kwarteng, Medical Director, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:21-CV-102 ______________________________ Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Austin D. Birdow, Texas prisoner # 02900272, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Dr. Isaac Kwarteng, Medical Director of the McConnell Unit where Birdow is housed, complaining that Dr. Kwarteng had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when Birdow sought treatment for a laceration on his tongue. The district court determined that _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-40316 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2024 No. 23-40316 Dr. Kwarteng was entitled to qualified immunity because Birdow failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Kwarteng acted with deliberate indifference to Birdow’s serious medical needs and granted the doctor’s motion for summary judgment. See Pratt v. Harris Cnty., Tex., 822 F.3d 174, 180 (5th Cir. 2016). Birdow reiterates his claims and asserts that the district court erred by granting the motion for summary judgment. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, LLC, 636 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011). The nature of Birdow’s allegations against Dr. Kwarteng is a challenge to the medical judgment he exercised when treating and accessing Birdow’s tongue injury, which does not give rise to a constitutional violation. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court did not err by granting Dr. Kwarteng’s motion for summary judgment and denying Birdow’s cross motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
