United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50188

Summary Calendar

Raymond E. Lumsden, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

Correctional Institutions Division; Lance Correll; Assistant 

Warden FNU Akwitti; Captain S. Blakely; Nick 

Clayton; Captain A. Martinez; Major B. Smith; Jane 

Cockerham, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:20-CV-113

USDC No. 6:20-CV-138

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 13, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50188 Document: 00516353952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
No. 21-50188

2

Raymond E. Lumsden, Texas prisoner # 2109472, filed 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaints, which were consolidated by the district court, alleging 

that the defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances and lawsuits, 

violated his due process rights, and acted with deliberate indifference. On 

appeal, Lumsden challenges the summary judgment dismissal of his claims. 

He contends that there were factual disputes in the record that precluded 

dismissal, the facts showed that the defendants retaliated against him, he 

alleged a protected liberty interest in avoiding confinement on a more 

restrictive unit in the absence of any legitimate justification for a disciplinary 

conviction, the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his 

complaints of retaliation and to the conditions of his confinement, and the 

defendants were not entitled to immunity. 

We review the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo, 

using the same standard employed by the district court. See Distribuidora 

Mari Jose, S.A. de C.V. v. Transmaritime, Inc., 738 F.3d 703, 706 (5th Cir. 

2013). For the following reasons, we affirm.

First, it is unavailing for Lumsden to challenge the dismissal of his 

retaliation claims. Contrary to his assertions, the summary judgment 

evidence does not show that, but for retaliatory motives, the challenged 

adverse acts would not have occurred. See McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 

225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Next, the summary judgment evidence does not show that Lumsden 

had a protected liberty interest, given the duration and nature of his 

confinement in disciplinary housing. See Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 

556, 562-63 & n.10 (5th Cir. 2008). Finally, the summary judgment evidence 

does not show that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to any 

retaliation or to the conditions of Lumsden’s confinement in disciplinary 

housing. See McDonald, 132 F.3d at 231; see also Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 

Case: 21-50188 Document: 00516353952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
No. 21-50188

3

660, 664 (5th Cir. 2001). In light of the foregoing, we need not address the 

district court’s immunity rulings. See Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th 

Cir. 1998) (noting that this court may affirm on any basis supported by the 

record).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Lumsden’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Cooper 

v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991).

Case: 21-50188 Document: 00516353952 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2022