Blackwell v. Kakani

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
No. 05-30477 Clerk
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 un-

der Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388 (1971). Blackwell alleges that Rama Kakani, a doctor

at the Overton 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
 No. 05-30477
-2-

We 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 plead-

ings, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories, and af-

fidavits, 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 Black-

well’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 mate-

rial 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. See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180

(1989).

AFFIRMED.