IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30682

Summary Calendar 

RICKY GIPSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

TIM WILKINSON; VIRGIL LUCAS; TOMMY GLOVER; JAY TIM MORGAN; 

WARDEN STEVENS; MILDRED MELTON; THEODORE JOHNSON; 

BOBBY SANDERS; PETER FLOWERS; MAC; JIMMY TURNER; ALFONZO 

PACHECO; PAT THOMAS; INSURANCE COMPANY OF CORRECTIONS 

CORPORATION OF AMERICA OF TENNESSEE, L.L.C.; WINN 

CORRECTIONAL CENTER; PRISON ENTERPRISES GARMENT 

FACTORY, 

Defendants-Appellees 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 1:10-CV-524

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ricky Gipson, Louisiana prisoner # 325027, appeals the dismissal of his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint following the district court’s grant of summary 

 

* 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 30, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30682 Document: 00513933450 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2017
No. 15-30682

2 

judgment. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, using the 

same standard as that employed by the district court. Carnaby v. City of 

Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate 

“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV.

P. 56(a). 

In his complaint, Gipson alleged that he was routinely and 

unconstitutionally strip searched and subjected to visual body cavity searches 

without probable cause. The district court granted summary judgment in favor 

of all defendants, with prejudice, concluding that the searches were justified 

and related to the legitimate penological interest of prison security. The 

district court also dismissed Gipson’s claims, without prejudice, against 

numerous defendants for lack of service. 

The Supreme Court recognized in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 558-59

(1979), that controlling the flow of contraband is a legitimate penological 

interest. In this case, the affidavits submitted by prison officials show that the 

challenged search policies were aimed at preventing the flow of contraband

from outside drivers - who delivered supplies to the garment factory and who 

routinely mingled with prisoners - to prisoners working in the garment factory 

and later to prisoners in the main prison and to prevent the removal of items 

from the garment factory that could be used as weapons. Gipson offered 

nothing to rebut prison officials’ reasonable justification for the strip and visual 

body cavity searches. Thus, Gipson has not shown that the district court erred 

in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on his Fourth 

Amendment claims. 

Gipson urges this court to consider his claim that the searches violated 

the Eighth Amendment and the 14th Amendment. However, in this circuit, 

 Case: 15-30682 Document: 00513933450 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2017
No. 15-30682

3 

the Fourth Amendment provides the proper framework in which to analyze 

such a claim. See Moore v. Carwell, 168 F.3d 234, 236-37 (5th Cir. 1999). The 

district court dismissed Gipson’s claims regarding sexual harassment, the 

conditions of the room in which he was searched, and his exposure to toxic 

fumes for failure to state a claim, and we affirmed the dismissal of those claims 

in Gipson’s first appeal. Gipson v. Wilkerson, 562 F. App’x 256, 257-58 (5th 

Cir. 2014). Thus, those claims are not before the court in the present appeal. 

Finally, because Gipson has not shown that the district court erred by granting 

summary judgment in favor of all defendants, see Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 

768 (5th Cir. 2001), we do not address Gipson’s argument that the district court 

erred by dismissing, without prejudice, the unserved defendants due to their 

failure to timely raise a lack of service defense. See Hosein v. Gonzales, 452 

F.3d 401, 403 (5th Cir. 2006). 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-30682 Document: 00513933450 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/30/2017