# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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

- 1 38

Before **Wiener, Dennis,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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: 06/13/2022No. 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 a voiding 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 th e 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, i t 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 motive s , 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
confin ement 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: 06/13/2022No. 21

- 50188

3 660, 664 (5th Cir. 2001). In light of the foregoing, we need not address the district court’s immunity ruling s

. 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