[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 06-15709 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
April 25, 2008
________________________
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-00025-CV-5-MP-MD
TERRENCE PAUL ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT G. BOYD,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 25, 2008)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, BLACK and FARRIS,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
Federal prisoner Terrence Robinson appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Captain Robert Boyd on Robinson’s First
Amendment retaliation claim. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In the prison context, we analyze First Amendment retaliation claims under
the three-part test set forth in Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir.
2005). To prevail, a plaintiff must establish: (1) his speech or act was
constitutionally protected; (2) defendant’s retaliatory conduct adversely affected
the protected speech; and (3) there is a causal connection between the retaliatory
action and the adverse effect on speech. Id.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Robinson, we conclude he
has not stated a First Amendment claim. While he clearly had a right to ask the
correctional officer about wearing warm gear, Robinson was not speaking on a
matter of public concern when he did so. Thus, his speech is not entitled to First
Amendment protection. In addition, after Boyd gave Robinson a direct
instruction, Robinson did not have a First Amendment right to argue with Boyd,
who was at that point constitutionally permitted to discipline Robinson for
disobeying his order.
AFFIRMED.
2