# Brandon LaVergne v. Michael Vaughn

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · March 12, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4515610

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 12, 2020
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner w/ out Counsel
- **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/4515610

## Opinion text

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4515610. Public record. Not legal advice.