Walter Booker v. R. Timmon
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00555-JCC-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999790472]. Mailed to: Walter D. Booker. [15-7720]
Appeal: 15-7720
Doc: 14
Filed: 04/07/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7720
WALTER D. BOOKER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
R. TIMMONS, Unit Manager; B. M. CLAUDE, Lieutenant; T.
ROBINSON, Sergeant; G. D. FAULCON, Sergeant; LIEUTENANT
TAYLOR; M. L. ROOK, Correctional Officer,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
A.
DAVID
ROBINSON,
Chief
of
Corrections
Operations;
WENDY S. HOBBS, Regional Administrator; EDDIE L. PEARSON,
Lead Warden; C. PARKER, Warden; J. HARRIS, Warden; C.
BOONE, Regional Ombudsman; S. TAPP, Human Rights Advocate;
K.
WHITEHEAD,
Grievance
Coordinator;
L.
GOODE,
Unit
Manager; D. DUGGER, Institutional Hearings Officer,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00555-JCC-IDD)
Submitted:
March 29, 2016
Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.
KEENAN,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
April 7, 2016
DAVIS,
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Senior
Appeal: 15-7720
Doc: 14
Filed: 04/07/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
Walter D. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, John Michael
Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 15-7720
Doc: 14
Filed: 04/07/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Virginia inmate Walter Booker appeals the district court’s
order denying his request for a preliminary injunction in this
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action.
The district court denied the
requested injunction because Booker did not show that he could
satisfy
any
of
the
factors
set
forth
in
Winter
v.
Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Natural
The court
made no specific findings of fact in reaching this conclusion.
Rule 52(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires that the district court
make particularized findings of fact supporting its decision to
grant
or
deny
a
preliminary
injunction;
such
findings
are
necessary in order for an appellate court to conduct meaningful
appellate
review.
See
H
&
R
Block
Tax
Servs.
LLC
v.
Acevedo-Lopez, 742 F.3d 1074, 1078 (8th Cir. 2014); Kisano Trade
& Invest Ltd. v. Lemster, 505 F. App’x 147, 148 (3d Cir. 2012).
In the absence of any such specific findings, we are constrained
to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in
denying the requested injunction.
See WV Ass’n of Club Owners &
Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir.
2009) (stating standard of review).
decision
of
proceedings.
the
district
court
We accordingly vacate the
and
remand
for
further
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
Appeal: 15-7720
before
Doc: 14
Filed: 04/07/2016
the
and
court
Pg: 4 of 4
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?