United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 23-30107

____________

Mary Delores Savoy, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Douglas Stroughter, Lieutenant Colonel; Haver Durr, 

Sergeant,

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:18-CV-463

______________________________

Before Willett, Wilson, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

For the second time in this prisoner excessive force lawsuit, the 

plaintiff appeals the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants 

based on qualified immunity. We AFFIRM.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 24, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

2

I

On April 13, 2018, Joseph Savoy (“Mr. Savoy”)1filed this civil rights 

lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two prison employees, Lieutenant 

Colonel Douglas Stroughter (“Stroughter”) and Sergeant Haver Durr

(“Durr”) (“the Officers”). He claimed that on July 31, 2017, the Officers

used excessive force against him during an incident in a hallway of the Dixon 

Correctional Institute, where he was a prisoner, in violation of his rights 

under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments.2

Plaintiff primarily relies on allegations contained in her unsworn 

complaint3 and an affidavit from Leopold LaCoste (“LaCoste affidavit”), an 

inmate present during the incident. In relevant part, the LaCoste affidavit 

states:

While speaking [with Stroughter] we heard [Durr] start 

badgering [Mr. Savoy], who was sitting quietly in the hallway 

across from the office in his wheelchair. [Durr] kept harassing 

[him] until she got him to respond by saying something like 

“stop cussing me” [sic]. The situation got louder and 

[Stroughter] went to the hallway and told [Mr. Savoy] to just 

“shut-up and calm down.” [Mr. Savoy] tried to tell 

[Stroughter] to get [Durr] away from him. Then [Stroughter] 

put his hand in [Mr. Savoy’s] face at which point [Mr. Savoy] 

_____________________

1 Mr. Savoy passed away on December 3, 2018, and his mother, Theresa Savoie, 

was substituted in his place. She passed away on March 11, 2020, and Mr. Savoy’s sister, 

Mary Dolores Savoy, was substituted in her place. Theresa Savoie and Mary Dolores Savoy 

are both referred to as “Plaintiff.”

2 Plaintiff also brought retaliation claims under the First Amendment but expressly 

abandoned them.

3 The allegations from the complaint are based on statements Mr. Savoy made in 

an Administrative Remedy Procedures report (“ARP”) after the incident. The district 

court found that the ARP was inadmissible hearsay, however, and Plaintiff did not appeal 

this evidentiary ruling.

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

3

lifted his arm—the one not in a sling—to deflect [Stroughter’s] 

hand. Then [Stroughter] hit him twice before knocking him out 

of his wheel chair [sic] and continuing to hit him repeatedly 

while he was down on the floor. [Durr] actually kicked 

[Mr. Savoy] in the head while he was on the ground.

Plaintiff did not present any affidavit, sworn statement, or deposition

testimony provided by Mr. Savoy before his death.

A surveillance camera partially captured the incident. The relevant 

part of the video, which has no sound, shows Mr. Savoy in a wheelchair 

making his way down a hallway. He stops and turns the chair in the hallway

to face offices. Durr later crosses his path and walks out of view. Two minutes 

later she walks back to the hallway where Mr. Savoy is sitting, the two appear 

to have a verbal interaction, and she moves out of view. When the recording 

resumes 20 seconds later, the Officers are standing directly in front of 

Mr. Savoy, and Stroughter’s arm is extended out towards Mr. Savoy’s left 

upper body. Mr. Savoy forcefully pushes away Stroughter’s arm, uses both 

arms to stand up from the wheelchair, and then quickly raises a hand towards 

Stroughter. Stroughter uses both arms to pin Mr. Savoy against the wall and 

Mr. Savoy abruptly pushes Stroughter’s arms off him. Mr. Savoy and the 

wheelchair fall backwards. Stroughter’s back is turned away from the camera, 

partially obstructing the camera’s view of the altercation. Mr. Savoy is 

positioned between the Officers; Stroughter is struggling with him to his 

right, and Durr is on his left assisting Stroughter for about 30 seconds before 

leaving the area. Stroughter and Mr. Savoy struggle for approximately 50 

seconds during which Stroughter makes three striking motions before 

another officer helps restrain Mr. Savoy. Captain Douglas McDonald

(“McDonald”) walks over to the Officers, stands over them, and the video 

ends. When the video resumes after 76 seconds, Mr. Savoy is calmly lying on 

the floor, and an officer has his foot on his back while another officer does 

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

4

something undiscernible near his lower back. The officer removes his foot,

and Mr. Savoy remains on the floor. The entire altercation lasted less than 

two minutes. Eventually, Mr. Savoy is lifted onto a stretcher, where he 

remains for a short time, talking to other inmates and smiling as he is being 

carried away.

On February 17, 2020, nearly ten months after the video had been 

produced to her, and six months after the July 2019 deadline for completing 

discovery, Plaintiff moved to compel production of portions of the video that 

she claimed had been intentionally withheld. The video footage was 

produced to Plaintiff in nine individual clips, with gaps in time between some 

of them. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that she “immediately reviewed” the 

video clips but did not notice the gaps until February 11, 2020. A magistrate 

judge denied the motion as untimely, and Plaintiff objected to the ruling.

On March 11, 2020, the Officers moved for summary judgment based 

on qualified immunity. Plaintiff filed her opposition to the motion on April 7, 

2020. Without resolving Plaintiff’s objections to the denial of her discovery 

motion, on March 25, 2021, the district court granted the Officers’ summary 

judgment motion based on qualified immunity. 

On appeal, we vacated the judgment and remanded for consideration 

of Plaintiff’s objections because it was “plausible that” a favorable ruling 

“would affect the summary judgment ruling.” Savoy v. Stroughter, No. 21-

30170, 2022 WL 686324, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 8, 2022) (unpublished). On 

remand, the district court conducted a hearing and overruled the objections

because the motion to compel was untimely, and it re-entered judgment in 

favor of the Officers. This appeal followed.4

_____________________

4 Plaintiff also brought related claims under state law. Initially, the district court 

declined to exercise jurisdiction over those claims after disposing of the Section 1983 claims 

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

5

II

Plaintiff first argues that the district court abused its discretion by 

overruling her objections to the magistrate judge’s denial of the motion to 

compel production of missing video footage.

We review discovery decisions for abuse of discretion. See Fielding v. 

Hubert Burda Media, Inc., 415 F.3d 419, 428 (5th Cir. 2005). A district court 

abuses its discretion “only if it[s] [decision] is ‘arbitrary or clearly 

unreasonable,’ and the appellant demonstrates prejudice resulting from the 

decision.” Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 755 F.3d 802, 808 (5th Cir. 2014) 

(quoting Fielding, 415 F.3d at 428).

Plaintiff received nine video clips of the incident on April 10, 2019, but 

her counsel did not notice gaps between some of the clips until February 11, 

2020. Plaintiff moved to compel production of the missing video footage

nearly six months after the close of discovery. The magistrate judge denied 

the motion to compel as untimely under Local Rule 26(d)(1) of the U.S. 

District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, which provides: “Absent 

exceptional circumstances, no motions relating to discovery . . . shall be filed 

after the expiration of the discovery deadline, unless they are filed within 

seven days after the discovery deadline and pertain to conduct occurring 

during the final seven days of discovery.” The district court overruled 

Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s ruling.

“Local rules generally have the force of law ‘as long as they do not 

_____________________

and dismissed them with prejudice. On appeal, the parties agreed the state law claims 

should have been dismissed without prejudice. This Court vacated that judgment. On 

remand, the district court dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. Plaintiff again

appeals the dismissal of the state law claims but fails to brief the issue. The issue is 

accordingly forfeited. See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021) (“A 

party forfeits an argument . . . by failing to adequately brief the argument on appeal.”).

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

6

conflict with a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, Congress, or the 

Constitution.’” Darouiche v. Fid. Nat’l Ins. Co., 415 F. App’x 548, 552 (5th 

Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (quoting Kinsley v. Lakeview Reg’l Med. Ctr. LLC, 570 

F.3d 586, 589 (5th Cir. 2009)). “[W]e normally defer to a district court’s 

construction of its own rules,” but “we are not obliged to accept a 

construction that renders a facially innocuous rule inconsistent with the 

Federal Rules.” John v. State of La. (Bd. of Trs. for State Colls. & Univs.), 757 

F.2d 698, 707 (5th Cir. 1985).

Plaintiff points to no source of law conflicting with Local Rule 

26(d)(1), concedes that the motion to compel was untimely, and does not 

argue that exceptional circumstances prevented a timely filing.5 She presents

no basis to conclude that the district court abused its discretion by following 

Local Rule 26(d)(1).6

III

Plaintiff next challenges the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment on three grounds: (1) the district court failed to view the evidence 

in her favor by not considering essential video footage of the July 2017 

_____________________

5 Plaintiff also argues that the district court abused its discretion by overruling her 

objections as untimely because, after the remand, “the Trial Court ordered [her] to refile 

the motion to compel and set a new deadline, which was met.” She did not file a motion to 

compel, however; she only refiled her objections to the magistrate judge’s order.

6 Plaintiff raises a spoliation issue on appeal, arguing that she is entitled to a legal 

presumption that the video footage has been altered. Although she raised the issue in 

various filings at the district court, she did not explain why the elements of spoliation were 

satisfied and did not appeal any district court order deciding the issue. Under our 

precedent, this is likely enough to hold that she forfeited a spoliation argument. See 

Humphries v. Elliott Co., 760 F.3d 414, 418 (5th Cir. 2014) (“It is the general rule . . . that a 

federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.” (quoting 

Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976))); Rollins, 8 F.4th at 397. Regardless, the 

elements of spoliation are not satisfied. See Coastal Bridge Co., L.L.C. v. Heatec, Inc., 833 

F. App’x 565, 573 (5th Cir. 2020).

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

7

incident before ruling on the Officers’ summary judgment motion; (2) the 

district court erred by generally failing to make all reasonable factual 

inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to her; and 

(3) genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment.

A

Citing comments during a post-remand discovery hearing,

7 Plaintiff

alleges that the district court failed to consider essential video footage of the 

July 2017 incident before ruling on the Officers’ summary judgment motion. 

The record does not support Plaintiff’s claim.

Because both parties called the footage to its attention in their 

summary judgment briefing, the district court had a responsibility to look at 

the video. See Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915–16 nn.7–8 (5th 

Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Indeed, video footage of the incident may be the 

most probative evidence in assessing an excessive force claim at the summary 

judgment stage. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 379–81 (2007).

In its order granting summary judgment for the Officers, dated March 

25, 2021, the court expressly stated that it had “[v]iew[ed] the admissible 

evidence and facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.” It is undisputed 

that the video evidence was admissible and in the record at the time.8

_____________________

7 The hearing was held to determine whether exceptional circumstances existed to 

excuse Plaintiff’s untimely motion to compel. She argued that the videos have gaps in the 

footage that are difficult to discern and that the defendants failed to produce all the video 

surveillance in their possession. The Officers denied that any additional footage existed and 

explained that the surveillance camera—a motion-detecting camera—was in a different 

room than where the altercation occurred and consequently only picked up portions of the 

incident.

8 The district court even referenced the video in its opinion stating, “The video 

has no audio, and does not show the initiation of the confrontation.”

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

8

Plaintiff points to two statements made during the post-remand 

discovery hearing, which was conducted over a year and five months after the 

summary judgment ruling. First, the court said, “Of course I haven’t seen 

the video, but I have read all of the pleadings.” Later in the hearing, the court 

stated, “What does that have to do with anything? It’s not my responsibility 

to look at the video.” At the start of the hearing, however, the court stated:

This matter is before the court on a motion to reconsider the 

ruling of the magistrate court denying a motion to compel. . . . 

So we’re here today for one matter. We will not get into the 

substance of the court’s prior ruling; that is the ruling on the 

motion for summary judgment. . . . We are here solely to take 

up the issue of whether the magistrate judge erred in its ruling 

denying your motion to compel. Let me assure you . . . that I’ve 

read all of your pleadings. Of course I haven’t seen the video, 

but I have read all of your pleadings.

During the hearing Plaintiff’s counsel said, “Judge, on the timeliness issue, 

Your Honor yourself mentioned that you hadn’t looked at the video yet,” to 

which the court responded, 

What does that have to do with anything? It’s not my 

responsibility to look at the video. My responsibility is to 

determine whether there are exceptional circumstances [that 

justify Plaintiff’s lack of timeliness]. That’s it. I’ve already 

reviewed . . . all the evidence that was before the Court for the 

motion for summary judgment.

When answering the court’s question about the significance of the videos, 

Plaintiff’s counsel clarified that had the court watched the videos, it would 

have known that the “skips in the video are very difficult to discern.” This 

context shows that the district court was merely explaining that it need not 

review the video to determine whether Plaintiff’s motion to compel was 

timely. Nevertheless, at the end of the same evidentiary hearing, the district 

court reassured counsel that it would “take a hard look at the video.”

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

9

Almost three months later, the district court overruled Plaintiff’s 

objections to the magistrate judge’s order and re-entered summary judgment 

for the Officers. Nothing in the record indicates that we should not take the 

district court at its word that it would—and did—review the video to rule on 

the summary judgment motion. See Armstrong v. Ashley, 918 F.3d 419, 423

(5th Cir. 2019).

B

Plaintiff argues that the district court failed to view the evidence in her 

favor by “adopting” the Officers’ factual assertions and that it improperly 

found that the Officers were entitled to qualified immunity because genuine 

disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment.

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same standards as the district court. Lozano v. Schubert, 41 F.4th 

485, 491 (5th Cir. 2022). That means we view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party and only affirm a grant of summary 

judgment when “there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also

Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010).

A qualified immunity defense alters the typical burden of proof on 

summary judgment. Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Once an official pleads the defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut 

it. Id. A plaintiff may not merely deny material facts or rely on unsworn 

allegations in the pleadings to defeat summary judgment; she must cite to 

specific parts of admissible materials in the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

The official has no burden to put forth evidence of his own. Beck v. Tex. State 

Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, 204 F.3d 629, 633–34 (5th Cir. 2000). But all 

inferences are still drawn in the plaintiff’s favor. Brown, 623 F.3d at 253. To 

determine whether qualified immunity applies, we ask: “(1) whether an 

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

10

official’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff; 

and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the 

violation.” Baker v. Coburn, 68 F.4th 240, 245 (5th Cir. 2023), as 

revised (May 19, 2023).

The reviewing court “should be permitted to exercise [its] sound 

discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity 

analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the 

particular case at hand.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).9

To determine whether a prison official violated an inmate’s rights by 

using excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and 

Unusual Punishments Clause, “the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force 

was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 

1, 6–7 (1992). “We focus on the prison official’s ‘subjective intent’ and 

determine it ‘by reference to the well-known Hudson factors.’” Byrd v. 

Harrell, 48 F.4th 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Cowart v. Erwin, 837 F.3d 

444, 452–53 (5th Cir. 2016)). Those factors are “(1) the extent of the injury 

suffered, (2) the need for the application of force, (3) the relationship 

between that need and the amount of force used, (4) the threat reasonably 

perceived by the responsible officials, and (5) any efforts made to temper the 

severity of a forceful response.” Id. (quoting Bourne v. Gunnels, 921 F.3d 484, 

490 (5th Cir. 2019)). Plaintiff appears to challenge the district court’s 

findings on all five.

_____________________

9 Plaintiff argues that the district court erred by not “adjudicating only the legal 

question of [whether] the right was clearly established” and instead, also undertaking the 

analysis of the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. This argument fails. See 

Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236.

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

11

Although courts must generally view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party, where video evidence contradicts that 

party’s version of events, we must “view[] the facts in the light depicted by 

the videotape.” Scott, 550 U.S. at 381. Put differently, “[w]hen opposing 

parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the 

record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt 

that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary 

judgment.” Id. at 380. This is because, “[w]here the record taken as a whole 

could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is 

no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Id. (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith 

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986)).

1

The first Hudson factor is the extent of the injury suffered. Because 

the district court found in Plaintiff’s favor on this factor, we will not address 

it.

2

The next factor is the need for the application of force. In support of 

their summary judgment motion, the Officers presented evidence, including 

video, deposition testimony, and affidavits, that they believed it was 

necessary to use force to restrain Mr. Savoy because he was being verbally 

disruptive and refused several direct orders to be quiet, he struck 

Stroughter’s hand, and he rose from his wheelchair and became combative 

with Stroughter. In response, Plaintiff primarily relied on the allegations in 

her unsworn complaint that the Officers threatened to kill Mr. Savoy and 

gratuitously attacked him in retaliation for his participation in a prior lawsuit 

against other correctional officers.

Both parties agree that a verbal exchange between Mr. Savoy and Durr 

triggered the altercation, but the LaCoste affidavit is silent on whether the 

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

12

Officers threatened Mr. Savoy, and the video does not show the initial verbal 

interaction between all three parties. Plaintiff has failed to identify any 

admissible evidence that the Officers threatened Mr. Savoy.

10

To show that there was no need for force because Mr. Savoy did not 

strike Stroughter’s hand or rise from his wheelchair to confront him, Plaintiff

points to screenshots of the video surveillance showing Mr. Savoy sitting in 

his wheelchair with the Officers standing over him. The actual video 

surveillance, however, shows Mr. Savoy quickly pushing away Stroughter’s 

arm, standing up from the wheelchair, and getting only inches away from 

Stroughter’s face.

11 Where, as here, video evidence contradicts the 

nonmoving party’s evidence, we must view the evidence “in the light 

depicted by the videotape.” See Scott, 550 U.S. at 381. Because Plaintiff’s 

version of events is belied by the video, she failed to identify evidence 

creating a genuine dispute of material fact, see id. at 380, and failed to carry 

her summary judgment burden with respect to the need for an application of 

force.

3

The third factor is the relationship between the need for force and the 

amount of force used. The Officers presented evidence, including video and 

affidavits, that, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, Stroughter did not wantonly 

punch Mr. Savoy in the face, but only pushed Mr. Savoy’s arms down to 

restrain him because he resisted Stroughter’s efforts to regain control. To 

establish that Mr. Savoy was not resisting, Plaintiff points to McDonald’s 

_____________________

10 Plaintiff relies on the inadmissible ARP to substantiate this claim. See supra

note 3.

11 The LaCoste affidavit also states that Mr. Savoy “lifted his arm . . . to deflect 

[Stroughter’s] hand.”

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

13

deposition testimony. When asked whether Mr. Savoy was moving when he 

was on the ground, McDonald responded, “I can’t tell at this point.”12 The 

LaCoste affidavit indicates that once on the ground, Stroughter hit Mr. Savoy 

repeatedly, and Durr kicked him in the head. Durr’s legs are not visible 

during the 30 seconds she appears to be helping Stroughter, so we consider 

this evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. 

Nevertheless, the LaCoste affidavit is silent on whether Mr. Savoy 

was resisting. The surveillance video shows Mr. Savoy’s arms flailing in 

different directions while he is on the ground. It also shows Mr. Savoy’s 

wheelchair, which is lying immediately next to him and Stroughter, moving 

and shifting as the struggle ensues. The video does not show Mr. Savoy or 

Stroughter being relatively still until about a minute later, when another 

officer appears to help Stroughter restrain Mr. Savoy.

13 Because the video 

shows Mr. Savoy’s resistance, and Plaintiff failed to identify any evidence 

that Durr and Stroughter’s use of force was gratuitous or malicious, she did 

not identify a genuine factual dispute with respect to the relationship between 

the need for force and the amount of force used. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9 

(“Not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause 

of action.”); see also Scott, 550 U.S. at 380–81.

_____________________

12 Notably, McDonald was watching the video surveillance during the deposition. 

The video shows him entering the building over a minute after the altercation occurred. 

When he arrived, Stroughter and Mr. Savoy were already on the ground and several officers 

had gathered around them further obscuring the camera’s view. It is unclear whether he 

was answering the question as someone who was watching the video surveillance, or from 

his perspective on the day of the incident.

13 The LaCoste affidavit statesthat Stroughter hit Mr. Savoy twice before knocking 

him out of his wheelchair. The video does not show Stroughter strike Mr. Savoy, only 

pinning him against the wall before he falls backwards.

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

14

4

The fourth factor is the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible

prison officials. The Officers presented evidence that Mr. Savoy was “clearly 

agitated,” cursed at and verbally threatened Durr, stood up from his 

wheelchair and confronted Stroughter, and shoved his hands away. To show 

that Mr. Savoy could not be perceived as threatening, Plaintiff points us to 

the video, asserting that nothing suggests that Mr. Savoy was being 

aggressive, and McDonald’s testimony. When asked whether he saw 

anything that indicated that Mr. Savoy was threatening someone with 

physical force, McDonald responded, “I couldn’t tell what he was doing, no 

ma’am.”

McDonald’s testimony and the video do not establish a genuine 

dispute of material fact. A prison official could reasonably perceive 

Mr. Savoy’s actions, displayed in the video, as threatening because he did not 

comply with the Officers’ instructions, aggressively stood up to confront 

Stroughter, and shoved away Stroughter’s hands more than once. See, e.g.,

Byrd, 48 F.4th at 348 (affirming summary judgment for prison officials where 

inmate failed to comply with officers’ instructions, resisted when officers 

attempted to restrain him, and the incident would not have occurred but for 

inmate’s violent resistance). Plaintiff adduces no evidence creating a factual 

dispute with respect to the Officer’s reasonable perceptions, so she has failed 

to carry her burden as to this element.

5

The final consideration is any efforts made to temper the severity of 

force. The evidence of record indicates that Mr. Savoy was given verbal 

warnings before the altercation became physical, and Plaintiff points to no 

evidence showing that Stroughter and Durr unreasonably escalated or 

unnecessarily continued their use of force against Mr. Savoy. She has failed 

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 23-30107

15

to establish a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the efforts made 

to temper the severity of force.

In conclusion, the record shows no constitutional violation on the part 

of the Officers. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown that the district court 

erred in granting summary judgment on her excessive force claim based on 

qualified immunity.

IV

We AFFIRM the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to compel and the 

judgment of the district court.

Case: 23-30107 Document: 82-1 Page: 15 Date Filed: 04/24/2024