Colly Cascen v. Harold W. Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00061-NKM-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999842086]. Mailed to: Colly Cascen. [15-7556]

Appeal: 15-7556

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7556

COLLY CASCEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the State of Virginia
Department of Corrections; ASST. WARDEN DAVID ROBINSON,
Chief of Operations of the State of Virginia Department of
Corrections; JOHN JABE, Deputy Director of Operations; J. C.
COMBS, Warden at Wallens Ridge State Prison; REBECCA YOUNG,
Operations Manager/Supervisor of the Wallens Ridge State
Prison; BRENDA RAVIZEE, Institutional Ombudsman/Grievance
Coordinator; QUINN REYNOLDS, Unit Manager/Supervisor at
Wallens
Ridge
State
Prison;
GREGORY
HOLLOWAY,
Superintendent/Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (7:15-cv-00061-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: May 13, 2016

Decided:

June 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Colly Cascen, Appellant Pro Se.
Mark Rankin Herring, Attorney
General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Appeal: 15-7556

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7556

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/03/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Colly Cascen appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to the Defendants on his complaint asserting
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use
and

Institutionalized

§ 2000cc-5 (2012).
reversible error.

Persons

Act,

42

U.S.C.

§ 2000cc

to

We have reviewed the record and find no
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Cascen v. Clarke, No. 7:15-cv-00061-NKM-

RSB (W.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2015).

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