Randle JACKSON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brian G. COLLINS, Correctional Sergeant at Telford Unit; Rodney L. Cooper, Warden at Telford Unit; Gary L. Gray, Correctional Captain at Telford Unit; Brian W. Rodeen; David W. Smith, Correctional Sergeant at Telford, Individually; Floyd W. Weatherly, Correctional Officer at Telford, Individually and in official capacity, Defendants-Appellees, 149 F. App'x 272

PER CURIAM: Randle Jackson, III, Texas prisoner No. 735701, has appealed the district court’s grant of

summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice of a civil rights complaint alleging Eighth Amendment violations and challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding as violative of principles of due process. We review the district court’s grant of

summary judgment de novo. Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir.1997). After reviewing the record, we conclude that Jackson’s sworn testimony at a hearing before a magistrate judge establishes that there are disputed material facts concerning Jackson’s claims that Sergeants Smith, Sergeant Collins, and Officer Weatherly subjected Jackson to excessive force. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 602-03 (5th Cir.1996). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as to those defendants.

Because the district court dismissed Jackson’s claims that Warden Cooper and Assistant Warden Rodeen failed to protect Jackson based on the court’s determination that Jackson was a not victim of excessive force, we vacate the dismissal of Jackson’s Eighth Amendment claims against those defendants. Jackson’s claims concerning the procedures used at a prison disciplinary hearing are barred under the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey because they implicate the validity of his disciplinary conviction. We therefore affirm the entry of

summary judgment with regard to Jackson’s claims that prison disciplinary proceeding violated principles of due process. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. “512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).