Brandon LaVergne v. Michael Vaughn, et al, No. 19-30272 (5th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-30272 Document: 00515342042 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-30272 Summary Calendar FILED March 12, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BRANDON S. LAVERGNE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MICHAEL VAUGHN, Investigator Louisiana State Penitentiary; BRUCE DODD, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:16-CV-400 Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brandon S. LaVergne, Louisiana prisoner # 424229, appeals from the rejection of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against prison officials relating to a “mail block.” Applying de novo review to the district court’s orders granting motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 19-30272 Document: 00515342042 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2020 No. 19-30272 we affirm. See Magee v. Reed, 912 F.3d 820, 822 (5th Cir. 2019); McCreary v. Richardson, 738 F.3d 651, 654 (5th Cir. 2013). First, LaVergne has not shown that the “mail block” violated clearly established law. See McCreary, 738 F.3d at 655-56. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on qualified immunity with respect to his constitutional challenges to the mail block. Second, contrary to LaVergne’s assertion, the district court did address and dismiss his claim based on stolen mail and pictures. Third, LaVergne fails to demonstrate error in the district court’s dismissal of his retaliation claim. See Brown v. Taylor, 911 F.3d 235, 245 (5th Cir. 2018). AFFIRMED. 2

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.