Ronnie K. Long, Jr. v. James Vaughan
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03117-BO,5:14-ct-03198-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999852726]. Mailed to: Ronnie Long, Jr.. [16-6035]
Appeal: 16-6035
Doc: 14
Filed: 06/14/2016
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6035
RONNIE K. LONG, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JAMES
VAUGHAN,
Superintendent;
CHAPLAIN
BETTY
BROWN,
Director of Chaplaincy Services; OLIVER WASHINGTON; JOHN
MORGAN; W. DAVID GUICE; GEORGE T. SOLOMON; FRANK L. PERRY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-ct-03117-BO; 5:14-ct-03198-BO)
Submitted:
May 27, 2016
Decided:
June 14, 2016
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie K. Long, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Special
Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6035
Doc: 14
Filed: 06/14/2016
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie K. Long, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
granting the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
Long, a
North Carolina inmate, filed claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that: (1) his religious rights were violated by a North
Carolina Department of Correction (“NCDOC”) policy that required
Wiccans to use a styrofoam cup and bowl in place of stone, wood,
or metal chalices and bowls when worshipping in their cells; (2)
his
equal
protection
rights
were
violated,
in
that
Native
American and Catholic practitioners were allowed to use objects
made
of
natural
materials
in
their
worship;
and
(3)
NCDOC
policies denied him access to the courts.
We “review the district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo, applying the same standard as the district court . . .
[and] construing the evidence in the light most favorable to
. . . the non-movant.”
Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC, 775
F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2014).
“The court shall grant summary
judgment 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.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Long first argues that NCDOC substantially interfered with
his right to practice his religion by forcing him to use a
styrofoam cup and bowl in place of a metal or stone chalice and
2
Appeal: 16-6035
Doc: 14
bowl.
Filed: 06/14/2016
Pg: 3 of 6
Long asserts that use of man-made materials in Wiccan
worship is blasphemous.
Prisoners maintain their constitutional rights to freedom
of
religion,
afforded
to
and
all
therefore
prisoners
“reasonable
to
exercise
opportunities
the
must
religious
be
freedom
guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendment without fear of
penalty.”
Cruz
Consequently,
substantial
religion.”
v.
states
burden
Beto,
may
on
a
405
not
U.S.
adopt
prisoner’s
319,
322
“policies
right
to
n.2
that
(1972).
impose
practice
Wall v. Wade, 741 F.3d 492, 498 (4th Cir. 2014).
a
his
A
substantial burden “is one that puts substantial pressure on an
adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.”
Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 187 (4th Cir. 2006) (brackets and
internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court correctly ruled that
Long
failed
to
establish
that
NCDOC’s
policies
imposed
a
substantial burden upon his practice of the Wiccan religion.
Although styrofoam may be anathema to Wicca, Long produced no
evidence demonstrating that a chalice and bowl were required to
practice Wicca.
Long averred that a chalice and bowl aided him
in his worship, but he never asserted that they were required
for worship.
To the contrary, the evidence submitted by both
Long and the Defendants demonstrated that such items were not
required.
3
Appeal: 16-6035
Doc: 14
Filed: 06/14/2016
Pg: 4 of 6
Long next alleges that NCDOC violated his equal protection
rights by treating Wiccans differently from Catholics and Native
Americans.
Long also argues that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on this
claim because the “[D]efendants intentionally refused to turn
over
[NCDOC’s]
Catholic
Policy
for
2000,”
which
would
have
demonstrated that Catholics were allowed to use objects made of
metal,
stone,
or
wood.
Long
therefore
argues
that
further
discovery was required.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause provides
that “[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
amend. XIV, § 1.
U.S. Const.
The Equal Protection Clause “is essentially a
direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated
alike.”
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473
U.S. 432, 439 (1985).
We have held that
To succeed on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff
must first demonstrate that he has been treated
differently from others with whom he is similarly
situated and that the unequal treatment was the result
of intentional or purposeful discrimination. Once this
showing is made, the court proceeds to determine
whether the disparity in treatment can be justified
under the requisite level of scrutiny.
Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001).
The district court did not err in determining that Long
failed
to
establish
that
he
was
4
similarly
situated
to
other
Appeal: 16-6035
Doc: 14
Filed: 06/14/2016
Pg: 5 of 6
prisoners who had received religious accommodations.
There is
no evidence that a chalice and bowl are essential to practice
Wicca,
whereas
religious
the
use
activity
practitioner.”
of
a
for
sacred
the
Furthermore,
pipe
“is
American
Long
an
Indian
presented
essential
religious
no
evidence
demonstrating that Catholics in North Carolina prisons conduct
worship with objects made of metal, stone, or wood but are not
required by their religious precepts to do so.
Turning to Long’s next argument, we review for abuse of
discretion a district court’s denial of an opportunity to engage
in
further
discovery
prior
to
entry
of
summary
judgment.
Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244
(4th Cir. 2002).
a
clear
abuse
possibility
extension.”
We “will not reverse a denial unless there is
of
the
discretion
party
was
or,
unless
prejudiced
by
there
the
is
a
denial
of
real
the
Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d
191, 195 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Generally speaking, ‘summary judgment must be refused where the
nonmoving
party
has
not
had
the
opportunity
information that is essential to his opposition.’”
to
discover
Harrods, 302
F.3d at 244 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242,
250
Long’s
n.5
(1986))
argument
and
(brackets
the
record
discretion on this point.
5
omitted).
and
We
perceive
have
no
reviewed
abuse
of
Appeal: 16-6035
Doc: 14
Filed: 06/14/2016
Pg: 6 of 6
Finally, Long argues that NCDOC denied him effective access
to the courts.
court,
To prevail on a claim of denial of access to the
prisoners
must
demonstrate
actual
Casey, 518 U.S. 434, 350-51 (1996).
injury.
Lewis
v.
Thus, a prisoner must show
that the prison policies “hindered his effort to pursue a legal
claim.”
Id. at 351.
Long argues that without legal assistance, he was unable to
effectively oppose summary judgment.
has
explicitly
rejected
any
However, the Supreme Court
notion
that
denial
of
legal
assistance alone may form the requisite injury needed to pursue
an access to courts claim.
See id. at 354.
Aside from this
purported injury, Long has not demonstrated that he was unable
to
pursue
his
successfully
claims.
file
To
the
complaints,
contrary,
motions,
Long
was
briefs,
able
and
to
other
documents before both the district court and this court, and
effectively pursued every avenue of redress available to him.
Long therefore has not established a cognizable injury and his
claim was properly denied.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
6
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?