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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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 [999992605]. Mailed to: Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. [16-6542]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6542 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6542 ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the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 Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?