Opinion

Brandon LaVergne v. Michael Vaughn

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Mar 12, 2020
Status
Unpublished
Nature of suit
Prisoner w/ out Counsel
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.2%

The opinion

Case: 19-30272 Document: 00515342042 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

No. 19-30272 March 12, 2020

Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

BRANDON S. LAVERGNE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MICHAEL VAUGHN, Investigator Louisiana State Penitentiary; BRUCE

DODD,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:16-CV-400

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Brandon S. LaVergne, Louisiana prisoner # 424229, appeals from the

rejection of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against prison officials relating to a

“mail block.” Applying de novo review to the district court’s orders granting

motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and a

motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56,

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 19-30272 Document: 00515342042 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2020

No. 19-30272

we affirm. See Magee v. Reed, 912 F.3d 820, 822 (5th Cir. 2019); McCreary v.

Richardson, 738 F.3d 651, 654 (5th Cir. 2013).

First, LaVergne has not shown that the “mail block” violated clearly

established law. See McCreary, 738 F.3d at 655-56. Accordingly, we are

unpersuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment

based on qualified immunity with respect to his constitutional challenges to

the mail block. Second, contrary to LaVergne’s assertion, the district court did

address and dismiss his claim based on stolen mail and pictures. Third,

LaVergne fails to demonstrate error in the district court’s dismissal of his

retaliation claim. See Brown v. Taylor, 911 F.3d 235, 245 (5th Cir. 2018).

AFFIRMED.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.