Alfonza Greenhill v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999992605]. Mailed to: Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. [16-6542]

Appeal: 16-6542

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6542

ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the
Department of Corrections; A. DAVID
Corrections Operations of the State of
of Corrections; EARL BARKSDALE, Warden
Prison,

State of Virginia
ROBINSON, Chief of
Virginia Department
of Red Onion State

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted:

November 18, 2016

Decided:

December 22, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, Appellant Pro Se.
Laura Haeberle
Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6542

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Alfonza Hardy Greenhill appeals the district court’s order
denying his request for a preliminary injunction in this action
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000cc

to

2000cc-5

(2012).

Greenhill,

a

Muslim

inmate

currently confined in segregation, sought an injunction ordering
prison

officials

to

provide

a

television

broadcast

of

the

Jum’ah, a revision in the prison’s grooming policy, and a change
in how he is served halal meals.
requested

injunction

because

The district court denied the

Greenhill

did

not

show

that

he

could satisfy any of the factors set forth in Winter v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

On

appeal, Greenhill only challenges the district court’s denial of
injunctive

relief

Accordingly,

we

regarding

affirm

the

his

district

access

to

the

court’s

order

as

Jum’ah.
to

disposition of the grooming policy and halal meal claims.

its
See

4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th
Cir. 2014); Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4
(4th Cir. 2004).
As to Greenhill’s claim concerning access to the Jum’ah,
the

district

court

made

no

specific

findings

conclusions of law in denying this claim.

of

fact

or

Rule 52(a)(2), Fed.

R. Civ. P., requires that the district court make particularized
2

Appeal: 16-6542

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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).

In the absence of any such specific findings,

we are constrained to conclude that the district court abused
its

discretion

Greenhill’s

in

Jum’ah

denying

the

injunction

See

claim.

requested
WV

of

Ass’n

Club

as

to

Owners

&

Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir.
2009) (stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order as to the
grooming

policy

and

halal

food

claims,

vacate

it

Jum’ah claim, and remand for further proceedings.

as

to

the

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 IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

3