USCA4 Appeal: 23-6928 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6928

OSCAR PEREZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TROY A. MORRISON, Sergeant, Alexander CI,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:21-cv-00097-MR)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oscar Perez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6928 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Oscar Perez appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor

of Appellee Troy Morrison on Perez’s amended

complaint. Limiting our

review to the issues raised in the informal brief, we have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey,

(4th Cir.

2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our

review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

“We review de novo a district court’s award of summary judgment, viewing the

facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Chapman v. Oakland Living

Ctr., Inc.,

(4th Cir. 2022). “Summary judgment is properly awarded

only if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Gordon v. Schilling,

(4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To state a colorable First Amendment

retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he engaged in protected First Amendment

activity, (2) the defendant[] took some action that adversely affected his First Amendment

rights, and (3) there was a causal relationship between his protected activity and the

defendant[’s] conduct.” Shaw v. Foreman,

, 130 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record leads us to conclude Perez did not establish a genuine

dispute of material fact as to the causation element of his claim. The undisputed evidence

shows Morrison “would have taken the same action[s] in the absence of [Perez’s] protected

activity” as part of an investigation that began before any of Perez’s protected activity

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6928 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

occurred.

. Moreover, many of the adverse actions of which Perez complains

were taken by or explicitly approved by officers who are not named defendants in this suit

and were in line with undisputed prison policy applicable to inmates who are under

investigation.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Perez v. Morrison, No. 5:21-

cv-00097-MR (W.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3