Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30272/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30272-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bruce Dodd
Appellee
Brandon S. LaVergne
Appellant
Michael Vaughn
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30272

Summary Calendar

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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30272 Document: 00515342042 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2020
No. 19-30272

2

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.

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