Alfonza Greenhill v. Harold Clarke
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency . Mailed to: Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. [16-6542]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the
Department of Corrections; A. DAVID
Corrections Operations of the State of
of Corrections; EARL BARKSDALE, Warden
State of Virginia
ROBINSON, Chief of
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
November 18, 2016
December 22, 2016
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, Appellant Pro Se.
Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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.
currently confined in segregation, sought an injunction ordering
Jum’ah, a revision in the prison’s grooming policy, and a change
in how he is served halal meals.
The district court denied the
could satisfy any of the factors set forth in Winter v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
appeal, Greenhill only challenges the district court’s denial of
disposition of the grooming policy and halal meal claims.
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,
conclusions of law in denying this claim.
Rule 52(a)(2), Fed.
R. Civ. P., requires that the district court make particularized
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.
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
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
Jum’ah claim, and remand for further proceedings.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
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?