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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum- stances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.