Blackwell v. Kakani, No. 05-30477 (5th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 30, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-30477 Summary Calendar JIM F. BLACKWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RAMA KAKANI, Defendant-Appellee. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana No. 5:03-CV-2038 -------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jim Blackwell appeals a summary judgment in his suit filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). at the Overton Blackwell alleges that Rama Kakani, a doctor Brooks Veterans Administration ( VA ) Medical Center, discriminated against him by discontinuing prescription medications on the basis of Blackwell s age and disability. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 05-30477 -2We review a summary judgment de novo. Guillory v. Domtar Indus., Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996). Summary judgment is appropriate where, considering all the allegations in the pleadings, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits, and drawing inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). After reviewing the briefs and the record, including Blackwell s evidence submitted in opposition to summary judgment, we conclude that the district court did not err. The evidence that Blackwell cites does not suffice to raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. We also affirm the sanc- tion precluding Blackwell from filing further lawsuits unless he first pays the filing fee. (1989). AFFIRMED. See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.